I must attest to the fact that some of the reasoning techniques that I used were more effective than others. For instance, I kept reasoning in line with denying the consequent. When making a decision denying the consequent may make a person take a risk (Nisbett 2013). Or so I thought, ‘If it will rain, I will get wet’ but then I assumed that if it would not rain, then I would not get wet and I would have accomplished my mission.
This kind of reasoning was more effective than the rest because the rest could have led me to, not to go to church. I was very careful with the questions I asked myself concerning what would have happened if I would get rained on and if I would not go to church. The risks are normally high and I had to make sober decisions no matter the outcome. Denying the consequent meant that I had to think of the opposite of the possibilities and this makes a person take the risk anyway (Buss 2005). Contrary to denying the antecedent, affirming the consequent and affirming the antecedent, denying the consequent makes a person take a step into the opposite direction, therefore taking a risk (Matlin 2013).
Buss, D. M. (2005).The handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. New York: John W3illey & Sons.
Matlin, M. W. (2013). Cognitive Psychology, 8th Edition. International Student Version. New York: John Wiley & Sons
Nisbett, R. E. (2013). Rules for Responding. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates