Communication, Goals, and Counterexamples in Syllogistic Reasoning

Abstract

We report on a study on syllogistic reasoning conceived with the idea that subjects' performance in experiments is highly dependent on the communicative situations in which the particular task is framed. From this perspective, we describe the results of Experiment 1 comparing the performance of undergraduate students in 5 different tasks. This between-subjects comparison inspires a within-subject intervention design (Experiment 2). The variations introduced on traditional experimental tasks and settings include two main dimensions. The first one focuses on reshaping the context (the pragmatics of the communication situations faced) along the dimension of cooperative vs. adversarial attitudes. The second one consists of rendering explicit the construction/representation of counterexamples, a crucial aspect in the definition of deduction (in the classical semantic sense). We obtain evidence on the possibility of a significant switch in students' performance and the strategies they follow. Syllogistic reasoning is seen here as a controlled microcosm informative enough to provide insights and we suggest strategies for wider contexts of reasoning, argumentation and proof.

Bounded rationality: from fast and frugal heuristics to logic programming and back

“…This leads to different kinds of interpretation and reasoning which can be, correspondingly, either intensional or extensional. In this way, environments may condition a form of reasoning closer to classical logic or to LP (see Vargas and Stenning 2020 for the case of syllogistic reasoning). Depending on the kind of communication at hand, one kind of reasoning may be more suitable than another.…”

“…This then contrasts with classical logic. Participants are rather good at classical logical countermodelling to settle disputes about interpretations (Vargas and Stenning 2020). FFHs generally fit best in the former: they require interpretations that then allow their methods to be applied.…”

Understandings of Syllogisms in Ontogeny and History: The Contributions of J. Piaget, A. R. Luria, M. Cole, and S. Scribner in Comparison

“…More difficult syllogisms are often understood by 30% or 50% of the young people of modern societies. However, some syllogisms are so complex that even the majority of adults do not understand them (Dickstein, 1976;Politzer, Bosc-Miné, & Sander, 2016;Schröder, 2008;Vargas & Stenning, 2020).…”

“…Some syllogisms are so simple that even children understand them; others are so complex that more than 90% of adults cannot master them. However, the overarching perspective remains that in the course of a child's development, the abstract thinking skills that facilitate the understanding of syllogisms increase (Bara, Bucciarelli, & Johnson-Laird, 1995;Galotti & Konatsu, 1989;Vargas & Stenning, 2020;Wildman & Fletcher, 1977). People from different educational milieus differ in how well they deal with syllogisms of varying degrees of difficulty.…”