CHAPTER 4.
Step 4: Survey the Literature 109
Reasoning Patterns
Whether unraveling the plot of a good detective novel or assembling a
jigsaw puzzle, the reasoning is the same as that used to create the lit-
erature review. There are basic patterns in any of these scenarios, and
they can be used to organize research evidence and claims to form the
argument of discovery. Before you proceed to the next task, here are
the patterns you need to understand. Alec Fisher, in The Logic of Real
Arguments (2003) and Critical Thinking: An Introduction (2004),
classifies the basic reasoning patterns into four types: (1) one-on-one
reasoning, (2) side-by-side reasoning, (3) chain reasoning, and (4) joint
reasoning.
These patterns of reasoning move from the simple to the complex. Each
pattern serves as a potential organizer for the logical patterning of the
connections between data groupings. These patterns are the warranting
schemes for connecting evidence to claims.
One-on-One Reasoning
The most elementary reasoning pattern is a simple connection between
reasoning and a conclusion. Its diagram is
R ... C.
In this simple pattern, one reason (R) is enough to justify the conclusion
(C) (as shown in Figure 4.5). This one-on-one reasoning can be proven
as true or false. An example of this type of reasoning would be, “The
noon bell has rung. Therefore, it must be lunchtime.”
Here you have one datum that convincingly leads to the claim.
The map (Figure 4.5) depicts the one-on-one logic—one datum
to justify the claim.
Figure 4.5 The One-on-One Map
therefore
Evidence (Reason) Conclusion
110 THE LITERATURE REVIEW
Side-by-Side Reasoning
A side-by-side reasoning pattern cites several data entries, all of which
offer the same reason to justify the conclusion. Here is a diagram of the
side-by-side pattern:
R 1, R 2, R 3, R4 . . . R n ∴ C.
This is the pattern used as an example of warranting reasoning
used in Chapter 2, and it is the scheme social science researchers
often use in arguing claims for a literature review. This pattern
typically uses the positions of several authors or results of several
research studies in support of the claim; expert opinions, research
studies, statistics, expert testimony, and other data are aligned in
support of the same conclusion. An evidentiary pattern is built as
one would build a stone wall. The result, as shown in Figure 4.6, is
a collection of overwhelming evidence warranting the conclusion.
Side-by-side reasoning is diagrammed using a convergent map.
Convergent maps are cumulative in their logic, which is an apt
pattern to use when several data entries independently con-
firm the conclusion. This is a justified claim because of the
sheer number of confirming entries. For example: “The eve-
ning news forecasts rain; the barometer says it will rain; the
Internet forecast predicts rain; therefore, it will probably rain.”
Figure 4.6 Side-by-Side Reasoning: The Convergent Map
+
Data entry (1)
+
Data entry (2)
+
Data entry (3)
+
Data entry (4) Conclusion
+
Data entry (5)
+
Data entry (6)
+
Data entry (n)
Body of evidence
CHAPTER 4. Step 4: Survey the Literature 111
Chain Reasoning
Chain reasoning is another pattern researchers widely use in building
an argument. Serial in nature, it begins by citing one or more reasons
that justify a conclusion. It uses a one-on-one reasoning pattern as
its foundation. The conclusion of the first pattern then becomes the
evidence for the second conclusion. This line of logic continues until
the final conclusion has been warranted. Here is the diagram for a
chain-reasoning pattern:
(R 1 ∴ C1) + (C1 ∴ C2) + (C2 ∴ C3) + . . . (Cn-1) ∴ Cn.
Notice that this pattern forms as if you were making a daisy
chain (Figure 4.7). Each link of the chain becomes the premise
for arguing the next conclusion. The thought pattern is, “If this,
then that; because of a, then b; because of b, then c.” Each con-
clusion thus becomes the reason that builds the next conclusion,
continuing the reasoning pattern.
You can use chain reasoning to link or develop connections
among reasons to form an overall conclusion. In chain reasoning,
the claim of one set of data will have a bearing on the claim of
another set of data. These linkages can be a qualification of one
claim on another, a causal connection between claims, an associa-
tion between claims, or an evolutionary connection of one claim to
the next. This mapping scheme is useful in tracking chronological
Figure 4.7 Chain Reasoning
Units of
evidence
Reason 1 Units of
evidence
Reason 2
Units of
evidence
Reason 3 Units of
evidence
Reason 4
Body of evidence
Conclusion
112 THE LITERATURE REVIEW
data entries and theory development. For example: “Car engines
burn less gas when they work at lower speeds, so lower speeds
mean less gas consumption; less gas consumption means fewer
toxic fuel emissions; fewer toxic fuel emissions mean less air pollu-
tion; therefore, reducing the speed limit means less air pollution.”
Joint Reasoning
In this case, the reasons stipulated cannot stand on their own but, when
taken together, provide the necessary reasoning to warrant the conclu-
sion. A diagram of a joint reasoning pattern is as follows:
(R 1 + R 2) ∴ C.
Neither R1 nor R2 alone provides enough justification to form the
conclusion. However, R1 and R2 together allow a logically drawn
conclusion. This thought pattern is demonstrated in the following
manner: “If x exists and y exists, then z.” If one of the partial rea-
sons (x or y) is not present, then there is no justified conclusion.
Review the following example: “When the temperature falls below
freezing and enough moisture is present, it will probably snow.”
Use joint reasoning when you find that data entries build a theory
or a position (Figure 4.8). The logic for this map is additive in
nature. Notice that the individual datum each entry represents
does not justify the conclusion on its own merit. Only when the
entries combine can the conclusion be made. The data are parts
that together make up a theory or position.
Figure 4.8 Joint Reasoning
+ + + Conclusion
Data entry (1) Data entry (2) Data entry (3) Data entry (n) Therefore
Body of evidence
