Reasoning by Criteria
Many of these types of reasoning were hard to understand because there weren’t definition and examples in the book to help clarify the type of reasoning. For me, I thought that reasoning by criteria was the hardest to understand. Reasoning by criteria is knowing the best outcome by understanding the criteria that the outcome will be based on. From my previous post I used the example, “Taking a class early in the morning would be difficult to keep awake in, how about you take a class in the afternoon?”. The outcome is taking an afternoon class. The criteria to take a afternoon class would be that morning classes are too early to keep awake in. Another example is “That blouse fits loose on you, you should really try a smaller size to ensure that the blouse fits nicely.” The outcome is trying a smaller size, while the criteria is that the blouse is loose. I found that the changing minds webpage had a reasonable explanation of the subject but links at the bottom where it said “see also” really helped into making this subject clear to me. When I read the similar reasoning types to reasoning by criteria it made it easier for me to grasp the concept.
Hey there! First of all I wanted to say that I totally agree with you about all of them being more difficult than usual. I felt that not having a way to reference examples from the book is what made it so confusing for me! The way you broke down the statements into criteria and outcome was really helpful. Doing this made the concept a lot easier to understand. I also like how you gave the example and then clarified which was which, “That blouse fits loose on you, you should really try a smaller size to ensure that the blouse fits nicely.” The outcome is trying a smaller size, while the criteria are that the blouse is loose“. Your blog really helped me understand the concept of reasoning with criteria!
ReplyDeleteHello k_tab,
ReplyDeleteReasoning by criteria was tough to understand for me too. The reason why it is tough because you have to know the best outcome by understanding the criteria that the outcome will be based on. So for this, you need to understand what you are dealing with and who you are dealing with. Because an answer may depend on what type of person you are dealing with and what subject you are talking about. Also, you have to say something without actually saying it. In a way, you are kind of implying what you are saying. Anyways... Great post and keep up the good work!
Hey! Nice post this week. I find that this week’s posts are a little hard to do because the book does not give too many examples. I had trouble understanding reasoning by criteria so thank you for writing this post because it did help me! I like the example that you given, and how your broke it down with the outcome and the criteria of the statement. Once I understood this concept, I really like how this reasoning works. It gives a reason why something should or should not happen and offers a suggestion on how things can change, even though there is no real answer given. It is really what the listener thinks that the speaker is implying.
ReplyDeleteHey there k_tab! Reasoning by criteria wasn’t the most difficult reasoning for me to understand, but it was the second compared to reasoning by analogy. Also, I agree with you that because information was not provided in the book, it was hard for me to better understand the concept. (I like having information provided for me in the book compared to looking it up online.) When I first read the description of it through the website provided, I was a bit confused with “defining the criteria.” What’s a criteria? And also the example was not that straightforward. Though, reading through other blogs made it easier to understand. Overall, simple, but to-the-point post about reasoning by criteria!!!
ReplyDelete