# data[].attributes.body
Post your thoughts about the reading. Try to identify what made you think, what you struggled with, and what you'll take away from the reading. Then reply to two other students.

# data[].attributes.body
There are 2 types of reasoning:

1. Casual: establishes cause and effect.

2. Analogical: compares two similar cases and assumes that what's true for one is true for the other.

-What made us think is how we use casual reasoning in our everyday lives without even realizing.

-We struggled with understanding why people assume when they are good at one thing they'll be good at the other, even though they are 2 different things.

False cause: assuming that one thing causes the other.

Invalid analogy: comparing two things that are not the same.

- We understood that casual and analogical reasoning can sometimes be based on false information, while it can also be true based on the information used.

# data[].attributes.body
What made us think:

Everyone uses both types of reasoning every day and it helps us form conversations.

What we struggled with/question:

Are there any other types of reasoning besides Causal and Analogical?

What we understood:

1. Causal reasoning is connecting a cause and effect between two events.

Ex: I was late for school because of traffic.

2. Analogical reasoning compares two similar events to support an argument.

Ex: My mom is good at cooking, so that means I'm bound to be a good cook.

3. The fallacy of false cause involves assuming one other event may have caused another.

Ex: Every time I wear my lucky bracelet, I pass the test.

4. An invalid analogy occurs when two things being compared aren't the same.

Ex: Assuming I'm good at soccer/football because I do gymnastics.

# data[].attributes.body
what made us think is how casual thinking occurs in our daily lives without realizing .

Causal Reasoning identifies a cause & effect relationship between two variables.

Analogical Reasoning compares two similar things to support an argument.

One of the major reasons for public speaking is to persuade others.

Two specific types of reasoning often used in persuasive speaking are causal and analogical.

Someones use of the word 'because' is the clue here that their using causal reasoning.

In public speaking, persuaders often use causal reasoning to bolster their claim that their particular solution is the right one. Questions about policy are often discussed using causal reasoning.

Fallacy of false cause involves assuming one thing causes another.

Analogical reasoning assumes that what's true for one, is true for the other.

In public speaking, analogical reasoning is often used to point out how policies have worked or failed in different places.

Invalid analogy occurs when two things being compared are not essentially the same.

A common challenge in analogical reasoning involves making sure that the two things being compared are as similar as possible.

Casual reasoning and analogical reasoning are often used to discuss policy solutions.

# data[].attributes.body
What made us think was, that if Kaleed is good at cricket, he will be just as good at playing baseball.

Kaleed is using analogical reasoning or analysis that compares to similar cases and assumes that what's true for

one is true for the other.

We struggled in understanding why can someone assume one thing that causes another.

Ex: the economy is doing better since the new mayor took office.

What we will take away from the reading is the fallacy of false cause which involves incorrectly assuming one thing causes.

Invalid analogy which occurs when two things being compared are not essentially.

Causal Reasoning: cause and effect

Analogical Reasoning: compares two similar cases and assumes that what's true for one is for all

# data[].attributes.body
Casual and Analogical Reasoning and Their Impact on Public Speaking:

- Casual reasoning focuses more on how reasons and consequences link two variables; on the other hand, analogical reasoning focuses on the similarities between to variables, all to support a certain claim.

- Impact on Public Speaking: when preparing for public speaking, both types of reasonings can be used to persuade the audience and to get one's point across.

- When casual reasoning is most commonly used to prove that one's idea or solution to a problem is correct. The speaker gives reasons for the resulting point. It can, however, be used incorrectly by assuming that the specific reasons the speaker gives are the only ones, when there are probably more., this case is called fallacy of false cause.

Ex: Kathy argues that she has a bad grade in economics because the teacher won't drop a quiz. This could be the only reason or not.

- When analogical reasoning is used to prove the efficiency/validity of one point by showing that a similar one was effective/correct. One problem that arises is when one makes an invalid analogy by comparing two dissimilar things.

Ex: I excelled in social studies as a student so I decided to major in sociology because of how similar they are.

What made me think: how many times I have used an invalid analogy or a fallacy of false cause on accident.

What i struggled with: to grasp which method is more effective.

My take-away: it is necessary to use those methods when I prepare to speak formally in public and how important they are.

# data[].attributes.body
Causal Thinking recognizes a reason and impact connection between two factors

Analogical Thinking looks at two comparable things to help a contention.

One efthe significant purposes behind open talking is to convince others.

Two explicit kinds of thinking frequently utilized in enticing talking are causal and analogical.

The fact that someone uses the word because indicates that they are using causal reasoning in this case.

out in the open talking, persuaders frequently utilize causal thinking to reinforce their case that their specific arrangement is the right one. Inquiries concerning strategy are frequently

talked about utilizing causal thinking.

misrepresentation of misleading reason includes accepting one thing causes another. analogical thinking accepts that what's valid for one, is valid for the other.

Analogical reasoning is frequently used in public speaking to demonstrate how various policies have succeeded or failed. invalid relationship happens when two things being thought about are not basically something similar.

A typical test in analogical thinking includes ensuring that the two things being looked at are basically as comparative as could be expected.

Relaxed thinking and analogical thinking are frequently used to examine strategy arrangements.

it made me think: Kaleed's father taught him to play cricket when he was very little. He loves playing that game, even though not many of his friends play it. But someone said to him that he could play baseball with his friends. Kaleed thought that sounded good. After all, if he's good at cricket, he should be good at baseball too, right? I don't think that this means he can play baseball and be good at it too.

# data[].attributes.body
-Causal reasoning is the process of identifying causality: the relationship between a cause and its effect

Ex: An example which is given for the causal reasoning is that lou was walking on a sidewalk which had ice on it. The ice was there and that’s the cause, she fell and broke her arm which is the effect

-Analogical reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on finding a common relational system between two situations, exemplars, or domains relies on given statements and similar consequences from past experiences

-this one kept us wondering and thinking of some examples, we could only think of one which is

Ex: A sparrow is very different from a car, but they are still similar in that they can both move.

-We also understood that public speaking is used to persuade and convince others to see their point of view on an issue

-And public speaking has two types of reasoning often used which are causal and analogical

# data[].attributes.body
A lot of arguments start because of casual reasoning. Someone might think one thing led to another assuming only one cause, when actually it might be several causes of something. We often struggle with analogical reasoning. For example; we're very good at playing soccer so we should be good at rugby since we also use our legs.

We thought about how much we automatically use casual reasoning everyday without realizing, and how I live my life off of analogical reasoning.

We struggled with understanding why can't people understand that when arguing, their point might be wrong since they're using casual reasoning and it might not be only one thing that lead to the another.

We understood that analogical and casual reasoning have a 50/50 chance of being correct since it might be based on either right or wrong information.

# data[].attributes.body
The 2 types of reasoning are casual and analogical.

Causal: Which is making a conclusion based on cause and effect.

Analogical: Which is comparing 2 similar things to come to a conclusion and support an argument.

What made us think: The way we use these types of reasoning every single day to conclude the smallest things everyday without realizing it.

We struggled to understand why people use these fallacies everyday and do not notice, and how hard it is for people to realize they're using fallacies in their arguments and stop using them.

What can we take away?

Learning the meanings of these types of reasoning, how we use them everyday, and when it's correct to use them. Also, the types of fallacies that come with using these types of reasoning , which include False cause and invalid analogy, which must be avoided.

# data[].attributes.body
Casual reasoning is the root of many arguments. It is possible for someone to believe that something has only one cause and that something has multiple causes. Our ability to reason analogically is often lacking.

For instance, since rugby involves the use of legs, and we are adept at soccer, we ought to be skilled in rugby as well.

We discussed how much informal reasoning is used by us unconsciously every day and how analogical reasoning is the foundation of my life.

We found it difficult to comprehend why some people are unable to realize that while they are debating, their perspective may be incorrect since they are relying solely on circumstantial evidence, which may or may not support their position.

We realized there is a 50/50 possibility when using informal and analogical reasoning.

# data[].attributes.body
Causal reasoning involves recognizing the cause-and-effect relationship, as seen in the instance where Lou slipped on icy pavement, causing her to break her arm

Analogical reasoning relies on identifying common relational systems between disparate situations or domains, often drawing from past experiences. For instance, though a sparrow and a car differ greatly, they share the similarity of being able to move.

Fnancial Planning:

Situation 1: Creating a budget for personal finances.

Situation 2: Planning a budget for a business.

Analogical Reasoning: Both situations involve allocating resources effectively, identifying priorities, and making informed decisions to ensure financial stability. The analogy is in the strategic approach to budgeting.

# data[].attributes.body
Causal reasoning is about looking at the cause and effect – like how one event can lead to another. Analogical reasoning, on the other hand, is about making comparisons to explain a concept or an idea, using something familiar to make sense of something new. They're both super useful in different ways for making your point clear when you're speaking to people.

Ex casual reasoning:If you study consistently, you will improve your grades. The cause (studying consistently) leads to the effect (improving grades)." Causal reasoning helps us understand the relationship between actions and outcomes.

Ex analogical reasoning: "Learning a new language is like learning to play a musical instrument. Both require practice, patience, and dedication to become proficient." Analogical reasoning helps us explain complex ideas by drawing comparisons to something more familiar. It can make concepts easier to understand and relate to.

Thinking about analogical reasoning, it's fascinating how it can simplify complex ideas and help us relate to them. It's like finding a bridge between the known and the unknown, which can be a powerful way to learn and teach. It's a reminder of how interconnected our knowledge and experiences can be.

one thing that people can struggle with while using casual reasoning is making hasty judgments. Sometimes, we might jump to conclusions without considering all the facts or perspectives. It's important to take our time and think things through.

Analogies can sometimes be tricky because you want to make sure they're spot on. If they're not quite right, they might confuse more than clarify. It's all about finding that balance. Another danger of analogical reasoning is that you can often overlook important details. This happens when you focus too much on the overall similarity between two things and fail to see the important differences.

lesson summary:Analogical reasoning compares two different things to explain a concept, like how learning a language is similar to learning an instrument. Causal reasoning shows how one thing can cause another, like how studying leads to better grades.

# data[].attributes.body
Casual reasoning, which involves establishing a cause-and-effect relationship, and analogical reasoning, which compares two similar cases, are both commonly used in our everyday lives. Surprisingly, we often employ casual reasoning without even realizing it. However, there is a tendency to struggle with the assumption that proficiency in one area automatically translates to proficiency in another, even when the two areas are distinct. This assumption is an example of false cause, where we mistakenly attribute a cause-and-effect relationship between unrelated phenomena. Similarly, invalid analogy occurs when we draw comparisons between two things that are fundamentally dissimilar. It is worth noting that both casual and analogical reasoning can occasionally be based on inaccurate or misleading information, but they can also be valid and reliable when the information used is sound.

Examples:

- Casual reasoning: "I ate a large meal, and shortly afterward, I felt sick. Therefore, the large meal caused my illness."

- Analogical reasoning: "John excels in mathematics and is also a proficient problem solver. Therefore, he will excel in computer programming, which requires similar problem-solving skills."

False cause example:

- "I wore my lucky socks to the exam, and I got an A. Therefore, my lucky socks must be the reason for my success."

Invalid analogy example:

- "Learning to ride a bike is like learning to swim. If you can ride a bike, you can definitely swim."

# data[].attributes.body
What are the two types of reasoning

Casual reasoning: the process of identifying causality: the relationship between a cause and its effect.

Example: There was spilled water on the floor and a boy slipped so the water caused it.

Analogical reasoning:a kind of reasoning that is based on finding a common relational system between two situations, exemplars, or domains.

Example: The atmosphere in mars is similar to earth to you might be able to live on it.

Something that made us think is the fact that people sometimes cause unrelated things to be related because they always want to find reason to things.

Something we understood is that going with these types of reasonings is a 50% chance and they are sometimes based on false information.

Something we struggled with is why people always jump to conclusions when it comes to forming reasons

# data[].attributes.body
What made us think:

Why people assume that if they're good at one thing, they'll be good at the other similar thing.

Why people would assume a certain thing caused an issue when there would be other factors that may contribute.

What we struggled with:

Understanding analogical reasoning. We first thought it would be something more complex, but it turned out to be a very common case in our reasoning.

What can we take away?:

That people use many different ways of reasoning and supporting their claim, which can easily be flawed.

# data[].attributes.body
The two types of reasoning are Casual and Analogical.

Causal:

It is making decisions based on looking at the cause and effect.

EX: I was late to school because I woke up late.

Analogical:

It is making a decision based on comparing two things alike.

EX: My brother and I went to the park. he got sick the next day, which means I'm also going to get sick.

What made us think:

How everyone uses both casual and analogical reasoning every day without noticing. And how we don't realize how much it affects us.

What we struggled with:

To know which type of reasoning has a stronger impact on us.

My take-away:

Understanding the two types of reasoning and how they affect us every day. We also learned about the fallacies that come with them and how to prevent them and use the reasonings correctly.

# data[].attributes.body
There are two types of thinking, casual and analogical.

Casual reasoning: is cause and effect, when you think or assume something happened because of another. But sometimes people make fallacy of false cause, basically assuming something happened bc of one other thing when it could've happened bc of a lot of other reasons combined.

Analogical reasoning: is when you compare two things together and act accordingly, so like just bc Kaleed was good at cricket he must be good at baseball here he compared two things together that weren't similar. that falls under false cause or invalid analogy.

something that made me think:

after reading the lesson summary it felt like everything was a big blur because we as humans do both without noticing everyday so in my mind i couldn't think of them as two different things after reading it only one time.

I struggled with:

understanding in a debate which would work better on people.

what you can take away:

that both ways we use in different situations and both are effective in different scenarios.

# data[].attributes.body
There are 2 types of reasoning: "1.Casual reasoning." and the second is "analogical reasoning." what we understood about casual reasoning is that it involves around understanding cause-and-effect "relationships" to make predictions or explanations. and the second one is Analogical reasoning, on the other hand, it draws similarities between different situations to infer information or solve problems based on shared characteristics. Both play crucial roles in human cognition and problem-solving.

E.g for Casual reasoning: "Increased study hours often lead to improved academic performance."

Another example for Casual reasoning: "When children eat a lot of sugar, they get more cavities. Therefore, sugar causes cavities."

E.g for Analogical reasoning:

"my dad is good at basketball, therefor im bound to be a good basketball player."

What made us think:

why people would assume a certain thing caused an error when there can be many Factors that may be the Real main issue.

What we struggled With:

we struggled in understanding Apological Reasoning we thought it was complicated when we first got introduced to the idea but it turned out to be pretty simple, and can be common in alot of cases.

What can we take away?:

that people use many types of reasoning in supporting their claims in a debate, opinion, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
-What made me think was how these types are commonly used in persuasive public speaking.

- What I understood:

Casual reasoning identifies a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables.
Ex: A woman with blue eyes will have kids with blue eyes.

Analogical reasoning is reasoning that depends on a comparison of instances.
Ex: learning a new language is like learning to play a musical instrument. Both require practice, patience, and dedication to become fluent or skilled.

- i struggled with identifying which one to use on which occasion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Habiba Shalkamy Analogical reasoning involves comparing two similar cases and assuming that what holds true for one is applicable to the other. Causal reasoning, on the other hand, identifies a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables by analyzing how one factor influences the other. What made me think? How everyone uses both reasoning everyday.What I've struggled with?assuming only one cause and the fallacy of false cause.

# data[].attributes.subject
Habiba Shalkamy Analogical reasoning involves comparing two similar cases and assuming that what holds true for one is applicable to the other. Causal reasoning, on the other hand, identifies a cause-and-effect relationship between two variables by analyzing how one factor influences the other. What made me think? How everyone uses both reasoning everyday.What I've struggled with?assuming only one cause and the fallacy of false cause.

# data[].attributes.body
In public speaking, two strategies are causal and analogical reasoning. Causal reasoning identifies a cause and effect relationship between two variables, while analogical reasoning compares two similar things to support an argument. In public speaking, persuaders often use causal reasoning to bolster their claim that their particular solution is the right one. For example, when Lou and Kaleed debate about the town's new mayor's performance, Lou claims that the economy is doing better because the new mayor took office. However, Kaleed points out two major problems with Lou's argument: assuming one thing causes another and assuming only one cause. Many public speakers focus on one cause when there are multiple causes, such as low inflation, high employment, or low gas prices. Understanding these two strategies can help public speakers prepare for their debates and effectively communicate their arguments.Kaleed, uses analogical reasoning to compare two similar cases and assumes that if he's good at one, he'll be good at another. In public speaking, this is often used to point out how policies have worked or failed in different places. In a debate with Lou, Kaleed argues that gun control laws have worked well in England, but Lou points out that this might be an invalid analogy. Lou argues that England has a different culture than the United States, and what works in England might not work in the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
Financial planning encompasses creating budgets for both personal finances and businesses. In each scenario, the fundamental aim is to allocate resources efficiently, prioritize expenditures, and make informed decisions to achieve financial stability. This analogy lies in the strategic application of budgeting principles, regardless of whether it's for personal or business use.Causal reasoning involves understanding the cause-and-effect connections, such as when Lou slipping on icy pavement leads to her breaking her arm.

Analogical reasoning involves identifying shared relational systems across different contexts. For example, despite the significant differences between a sparrow and a car, they both exhibit the common ability to move.

Financial planning encompasses creating budgets for both personal finances and businesses. In each scenario, the fundamental aim is to allocate resources efficiently, prioritize expenditures, and make informed decisions to achieve financial stability. This analogy lies in the strategic application of budgeting principles, regardless of whether it's for personal or business use.

# data[].attributes.body
Using causal reasoning in public speaking, like the example with Lou and the ice, can be very effective for persuading an audience because it connects events in a way that seems logical and understandable. If Lou or Kaleed use this type of reasoning during their debate, they could really drive home their points by showing direct relationships between causes and effects related to their topics.

Analogical reasoning is another awesome tool for debates. It works by drawing parallels between two similar cases. If Kaleed or Lou can find a strong analogy that relates to their argument, it can help the audience better understand their points by comparing a known situation with the one being discussed.

Both methods, when used well, can seriously boost their persuasiveness in public speaking. Just remember, for analogical reasoning to work, the similarity between the two cases has to be strong enough to be convincing. And for causal reasoning, the cause and effect link should be clear and direct to avoid any logical fallacies.

# data[].attributes.body
Hatem hussein

public speaking speakers usually use the  causal reasoning to create cause and effect, and analogical reasoning is to  compare same like  cases. Causal reasoning is comminly used to support claims and discussion of policies . while analogical reasoning is used to show  how policies worked or failed in different places.you need to be aware  when using these strategies during public speaking,because errors in reasoning in reasoning can occur , like assuming only one cause in causal reasoning or making wrong and inaccurate  analogies in analogical reasoning can impact the effectiveness of the argument.

# data[].attributes.body
Casual Reasoning: analysis that seeks to establish a cause and effect relationship between two things.

Analogical Reasoning: compares two similar cases and assumes that what's true for one is true for the other.

example of analogical reasoning: my voice is good, so I can be a famous rapper.

What made me think: why people assume that when one thing happens the other is an effect of this thing.

What I struggled with: understanding what false cause is.

What can we take away: using these two types of reasoning are commonly used everyday by us and we don't even realize it.

# data[].attributes.body
In everyday life, people often rely on both analogical and causal reasoning to navigate various situations. Analogical reasoning allows individuals to draw parallels between similar scenarios and apply knowledge or experiences from one situation to another. This helps in making quick decisions and predictions based on past occurrences.

Causal reasoning, on the other hand, helps individuals understand the underlying mechanisms behind events or phenomena. By identifying cause-and-effect relationships, people can better comprehend why certain outcomes occur and make informed choices to either replicate desirable results or avoid undesirable ones.

However, despite their usefulness, both forms of reasoning can lead to pitfalls if not applied critically. For instance, assuming a direct causal relationship between two variables without considering other possible factors can result in the fallacy of false cause or oversimplification of complex phenomena.

Furthermore, while analogical reasoning can be a powerful tool for problem-solving, it may sometimes lead to erroneous conclusions if the similarities between two cases are superficial or if relevant differences are overlooked.

Overall, being aware of the strengths and limitations of both analogical and causal reasoning can help individuals make more sound judgments and avoid common cognitive biases in their daily lives.