Structuring Discussion

Structuring Discussion

Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning

A fundamental point to structuring a discussion is about developing the right logical flow of the argument. There are two primary types of logical argument construction that should be used : Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning

Deductive reasoning should be used to convey fact-based arguments. It should begin with one key thought that is your primary statement. If one was to take the example of someone looking to convince another of the merits of recycling, the discussion might go in a following way:

Primary thought: “the environment is in trouble. Recycling is an effective way to save it.” From this statement you can build a base of secondary supporting points with tertiary sub-points that further reinforce the argument to which it belongs. Examples of this can be seen below:

• Secondary thought 1: Recycling saves land.
• Tertiary thought 1.1: One million acres of land a year could be saved through reducing the amount of landfills used.
• Tertiary thought 1.2: 150 acres of land could be saved each year through building fewer factories to build extra products that would not be needed if we recycled.
• Secondary thought 2: Recycling saves energy.
• Tertiary thought 2.1: One hundred billion kilowatts of electricity could be saved through recycling products rather than having to manufacture them from scratch again.
• Tertiary thought 2.2: And so…

This approach can make for a very strong argument and is especially useful when dealing with people who require fact-based points in order to be convinced.

Think like a wise man but communicate in the language of the people” (William Butler Yeats). Illustration: Megan Jorgensen (Elena)

Inductive reasoning

The method of inductive reasoning can also be useful, particularly in the absence of solid facts. This approach however does leave it susceptible to more cynical audiences. This type of logic could be explained through an example of a passenger looking to convince a colleague to select one means of transport over another. In this case, the conversation would still begin with a key statement to which all of your following statements will go to support.

Primary thought: “Taking the bus will take us there before taking the plane”. From this point you begin with a statement about the current situation: “The bus takes longer than the plane, however it is due to arrive before the plane.”

This assumption should then be followed up with an observation: “I have checked the schedule and there are currently delays at the airport. It also gets a longer time to get into town from the airport”.

Finally, an action with supporting points should be made: “We can therefore arrive an hour earlier if we get the bus, and there is no need for a taxi into town and there are no delays. We will also be able to avoid check in and passport lines”.

It will always be up to you to decide the receptiveness of your audience and the weight of the facts available to you. Once you have decided on your structure, you can then begin to work on the format of your delivery. Here again, there are multiple formats that further add to the complications of ensuring the optimum results.