The Uses of Verbal Reasoning

Verbal reasoning (or VR) is, in essence, ‘thinking using words framed in terms of concepts framed in sentences, paragraphs, or text’, it seeks to evaluate the capability to reason constructively rather than simply recognise existing language. Verbal reasoning can be thought of as a kind of test of human thinking rather than of the knowledge that one has learnt.

Verbal Reasoning is an assessment of the abilities of an individual using verbal language and is commonly associated with the academic examination system (for example, the Graduate Certificate exams). It is often referred to as ‘verbal reasoning’ (VR), because it tests a person’s capacity to understand and use the language they are studying, using both verbal and non-verbal cues (such as hand gestures and facial expressions). The main areas of study for this type of reasoning include law, engineering, and medicine. For example, a lawyer may analyse the contents of a witness statement to determine whether the statements were true or not, while a surgeon might assess the effectiveness of a surgical instrument by comparing it to another similar instrument.

This is often thought of as a ‘test of skill’ rather than of the subject matter that are being examined. However, verbal reasoning can be used to identify whether a particular piece of information is correct, and how it should be interpreted. A doctor who performed surgery on a patient could argue that a certain procedure had been carried out correctly, even if a medical professional had misunderstood the procedure when giving treatment to the patient. This form of argumentation is commonly used in court. It also appears frequently in legal proceedings, with lawyers arguing for or against particular procedures, and the courts determining the validity of such arguments by relying upon a standardised form of reasoning known as ‘the law’.

Because verbal reasoning can be used to support or against a given point in a discussion, it is often used by lawyers and other professionals in the field of law and medicine to establish whether particular arguments are based on the best possible evidence in relation to a given topic. One example of this is when lawyers argue that a particular drug has side effects on a patient and therefore should not be prescribed. They then use this as the basis of their argument and argue that the drug should not be prescribed, because it would have caused the opposite effect on the person taking it. This is usually used in court and it is a very important tool when the courts are considering whether a case.

The main problem with verbal reasoning in a subject matter is that, as mentioned above, it is not based on the subject matter. Rather, it is based on the argumentative style that the writer uses in order to support or argue a particular point. The argument needs to be able to justify the conclusion that has been reached based on a detailed analysis of the situation. This form of reasoning therefore relies upon an understanding of the subject matter, and the facts that the writer wishes to establish.

However, there are some key areas of study that cannot be assessed by this type of reasoning. As stated earlier, verbal reasoning can only rely on facts and, in general, cannot be used to support or prove a case.

Verbal Reasoning can be used as a means of challenging and disproving arguments, but this is often a problem for lawyers because they often need to prove their points using arguments that are based on facts that can be challenged. For instance, a lawyer could argue that there is no legal precedent supporting the fact that an employee’s employer has the legal right to dismiss the worker.

However, it is possible to use this type of reasoning as a means of ensuring that a university exam is not biased in the way that most students believe that it should be, so that the arguments that are being made are based on factual information that can be checked. For instance, a student could argue that the school was not biased when it accepted the student’s opinion, because the facts that were presented were based on facts that were based on facts.

Share This