Resolving arguments accurately

Abstract

This empirical investigation examined how ordinary language users resolved disagreements over the solutions to categorical syllogisms. Forty-six participants completed puzzles in logic. After completing the puzzles, participants were then randomly paired into 23 to compare their answers and to resolve 159 disagreements. Results indicate that the most frequently used strategies for resolving disagreements centered on: (a) arguing over the merits of the position (47% of the time) and (b) appealing to past solutions as a means of addressing current disputes (28% of the time). In addition, the data revealed that the most frequently used strategy (arguing the merits of the positions) was no more effective than random choice (52% increase in correct solutions) while the strategy of appealing to past solutions significantly aided dyads in reaching correct solutions (70% increase in correct solutions).KEY WORDS: Resolving argument, logic, rationality, discourse, syllogisms.Argumentation involves two general processes: an internal or intrapersonal decision-making procedure, and an external process of social interaction where reasons are provided to persuade others. Scholars studying argumentation are interested in describing how ordinary and specialized actors use these two processes to draw conclusions and resolve disagreements. In this empirical investigation, we examined how an individual's conclusions were tested during social interaction. We examined how ordinary language users resolved disagreements about the solutions to categorical syllogisms.One test of any individually reasoned conclusion is the acceptability of the conclusion after interaction with others. The arguer will not always convince others or be convinced by others. Many arguments between individuals remain unresolved. During the argumentation process, individuals consider the interests, concerns, and reasoning of others in deciding whether or not to modify their positions.Research by Jacobs, Jackson, Allen, and Patrell (1985) showed that when individuals were solving abstract categorical syllogisms, they could recognize a valid conclusion argued for by others even when their initial conclusion was incorrect. Participants in this research had no prior experience with formal logic or with categorical syllogisms.

Effective conflict management in early childhood education

“…Conclude the conflict resolution process by reflecting on the chosen solution. This step reinforces the concept that conflicts can be resolved constructively [14].…”

“…Facilitate a collaborative process wherein children actively participate in finding solutions. This encourages the development of critical thinking and decision-making skills [14].…”

Argumentation in Psychology: Background Comments

“…Stein and Bernas (1999) considered three outcomes-win-loss, compromise, and standoff-and emphasized the social interactions and goals of the participants. In one conflict resolution study, Allen and Burrell (1990) had college students, given premises of syllogisms, resolve disagreements regarding the syllogisms' conclusions. Arguing the merits of the case was the most frequent negotiation, but it yielded a relatively low percentage of correct responses.…”