Logical Reasoning Foundations: Clarifying Language and Avoiding Misreadings

Why language clarity matters for reasoning

Many arguments go wrong not because the reasoning is complex, but because key words can be read in more than one way. When a term is ambiguous or vague, two people can “agree” on the sentence while imagining different standards, different cases, or even different claims. Clarifying language is not nitpicking: it changes what the argument is actually saying, and therefore whether the support fits.

Two common sources of misreading: ambiguity vs. vagueness

Ambiguity happens when a word or phrase has multiple distinct meanings. The sentence can be interpreted in different ways, like a switch flipping between options.

• Example (ambiguous): “The bank is unsafe.” (bank = financial institution vs. riverbank)
• Example (ambiguous): “This policy is ethical.” (ethical = follows the law, respects autonomy, maximizes welfare, aligns with religious rules, etc.)

Vagueness happens when a term has a fuzzy boundary. There is one general meaning, but it’s unclear where it starts and ends.

• Example (vague): “The rent is affordable.” Affordable for whom? Under what budget rule?
• Example (vague): “That job is successful.” Successful by what metric and time frame?

In practice, many “loaded” everyday terms are both: they can have multiple standards (ambiguity) and unclear thresholds (vagueness).

Key move 1: Define key terms (without over-defining)

Clarification starts by identifying the words that carry the argumentative weight—terms that, if changed, would change the conclusion or the strength of the support.

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

Step-by-step: a quick definition workflow

• Step 1: Circle the hinge terms. Look for adjectives and abstract nouns: “affordable,” “dangerous,” “successful,” “ethical,” “fair,” “safe,” “effective,” “harmful.”
• Step 2: List plausible meanings. Write 2–4 candidate definitions that a reasonable person might use in context.
• Step 3: Pick the meaning that best fits the reasons offered. If the reasons only support one meaning, that’s likely the intended one. If the reasons support none clearly, the argument is under-specified.
• Step 4: Make the definition operational when possible. Turn it into a measurable or checkable standard (a threshold, a comparison class, a time window).
• Step 5: Re-read the argument with the clarified term. Ask whether the reasons still support the conclusion under that definition.

Operationalizing common hinge terms

Notice that operational definitions are not the only legitimate definitions. They are useful because they force the argument to commit to a standard that evidence can actually address.

Key move 2: Distinguish descriptive vs. evaluative language

Arguments often mix descriptive language (aiming to report how things are) with evaluative language (expressing a judgment about how good/bad, right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable something is). Misreadings happen when a reader treats an evaluation as if it were a description, or treats a description as if it settled the evaluation.

How to tell them apart

• Descriptive terms often answer: What happened? How much? How often? Under what conditions? (e.g., “costs $1,800/month,” “increased by 12%,” “causes nausea in 3% of users”).
• Evaluative terms often answer: Is it good? acceptable? fair? worth it? (e.g., “affordable,” “dangerous,” “successful,” “ethical,” “unfair,” “too expensive”).

Evaluative terms usually hide a standard. For example, “dangerous” implies a threshold of acceptable risk, and “ethical” implies a moral framework or set of constraints.

Example: “dangerous” as a descriptive-evaluative blend

Original: “E-scooters are dangerous, so the city should ban them.”

• Descriptive questions: Dangerous compared to what (walking, bikes, cars)? Dangerous for whom (riders, pedestrians)? Measured how (injuries per mile, fatalities per trip)? Over what time period?
• Evaluative questions: What level of risk is acceptable? Are there less restrictive ways to reduce risk (helmets, speed limits, infrastructure)?

Two people can agree that “injuries happen” but disagree on whether that makes the activity “dangerous enough to ban.” Clarifying the evaluative standard is part of clarifying the argument.

Key move 3: Separate facts from opinions (without dismissing either)

“Fact vs. opinion” is often taught as “facts matter, opinions don’t.” That’s a mistake. In reasoning, facts and opinions play different roles:

• Facts (or factual claims) are claims that can, in principle, be checked against evidence: measurements, records, observations, well-defined criteria.
• Opinions are often evaluations (“This is unethical”), preferences (“I dislike it”), or interpretations (“This policy sends the wrong message”). They can be supported by reasons even if they are not settled by measurement alone.

The goal is not to eliminate opinions; it is to make clear which parts of the argument are factual claims and which parts are evaluative judgments, then check whether the factual claims actually connect to the evaluative standard being used.

A practical sorting method

• Step 1: Underline checkable claims. Numbers, comparisons, time frames, causal statements, “most,” “increased,” “reduced,” “caused.”
• Step 2: Box value terms. “Affordable,” “dangerous,” “successful,” “ethical,” “fair,” “acceptable,” “too much.”
• Step 3: Write the missing bridge as a standard. Example: “If an option costs more than X% of income, it is not affordable.” Or: “If a policy increases harm to non-consenting people, it is unethical.”
• Step 4: Test fit. Do the underlined factual claims meet the boxed standard? If not, the support is weak or aimed at a different meaning.

How different meanings change the argument

Example 1: “Affordable”

Argument: “The new housing development is affordable because the average unit costs $1,600 per month.”

Possible meanings of ‘affordable’:

• Meaning A (income-ratio): Affordable = ≤ 30% of take-home pay for the target group.
• Meaning B (market-relative): Affordable = cheaper than the neighborhood average.
• Meaning C (absolute): Affordable = most working households can pay without hardship.

How the support changes:

• If “affordable” means market-relative, then “$1,600” supports the conclusion only if we know the neighborhood average is higher.
• If “affordable” means income-ratio, then “$1,600” supports the conclusion only if we know the target group’s take-home pay and the ratio is within the threshold.
• If “affordable” means without hardship, we need evidence about budgets, debt, childcare costs, and so on—not just rent price.

Example 2: “Successful”

Argument: “The training program was successful because participants reported higher confidence afterward.”

Possible meanings of ‘successful’:

• Meaning A (self-report): Success = improved confidence ratings.
• Meaning B (performance): Success = improved job placement or measurable skill performance.
• Meaning C (cost-effectiveness): Success = benefits justify costs compared to alternatives.

Under Meaning A, the reason fits. Under Meaning B or C, the reason may be irrelevant or insufficient. The same sentence can shift from “well-supported” to “unsupported” depending on what “successful” is taken to mean.

Example 3: “Ethical”

Argument: “It’s ethical for the company to collect location data because users agreed to the terms.”

Possible meanings of ‘ethical’:

• Meaning A (consent-based): Ethical = informed, voluntary consent was obtained.
• Meaning B (harm-based): Ethical = does not create significant risk of harm or misuse.
• Meaning C (fairness-based): Ethical = does not exploit power imbalances or manipulate users.

The reason “users agreed” supports Meaning A only if the consent is genuinely informed and non-coercive. It does little by itself for Meaning B or C, which would require evidence about risks, safeguards, and manipulation.

Practice: clarify, rewrite, then re-evaluate the support

Practice prompt

Rewrite the following argument by clarifying key terms. Then re-evaluate whether the support still fits.

Original argument: “The city should approve the new chemical plant because it will be good for the community. The plant is safe, and it will create jobs.”

Step 1: Identify hinge terms

• “good for the community” (evaluative, vague)
• “safe” (evaluative/descriptive blend, vague)
• “create jobs” (descriptive but incomplete: how many, for whom, at what wages, for how long?)

Step 2: List plausible meanings

• Good for the community could mean: increases average income; reduces unemployment; increases tax revenue; improves overall well-being; benefits outweigh harms for most residents.
• Safe could mean: meets legal limits; risk below a specified threshold; comparable risk to similar facilities; no significant increase in local health incidents.

Step 3: Choose a definition and make it operational

Here is one reasonable clarified version (not the only one):

• Good for the community = “Over the next 5 years, the project’s economic benefits (wages + local spending + tax revenue) outweigh expected health and environmental costs for residents within 10 miles.”
• Safe = “Expected emissions keep added lifetime cancer risk for nearby residents below 1 in 100,000, and accident probability is below the industry median, based on independent assessment.”
• Create jobs = “Creates at least 300 full-time jobs for local residents with median wages above the county median, lasting at least 3 years.”

Step 4: Rewrite the argument with clarified terms

Clarified rewrite: “The city should approve the new chemical plant because, over the next 5 years, the project’s economic benefits for residents within 10 miles will outweigh expected health and environmental costs. An independent assessment estimates that added lifetime cancer risk from emissions will remain below 1 in 100,000 and that accident probability is below the industry median. In addition, the plant is projected to create at least 300 full-time jobs for local residents with median wages above the county median for at least 3 years.”

Step 5: Re-evaluate whether the support fits

Now test the match between reasons and the clarified conclusion:

• Does “safe” support “benefits outweigh costs”? Partially. Safety evidence reduces expected costs, but you still need explicit estimates of remaining harms and how they compare to benefits.
• Do “jobs” support “benefits outweigh costs”? Partially. Job numbers and wages support economic benefits, but you may still need to account for who gets the jobs, displacement effects, and whether benefits are local.
• What additional information would strengthen the fit? A quantified cost-benefit comparison, distributional impacts (who bears risks vs. who gains), and sensitivity analysis (what happens if emissions are higher than expected).

Try a second rewrite with a different meaning

Change just one hinge term and watch the argument shift:

Alternative definition: “Safe” = “poses no meaningful increase in respiratory illness for nearby children.”

Re-evaluation: The original support (“it will create jobs”) does not address child respiratory outcomes at all, and “meets legal limits” might not settle “no meaningful increase.” Under this meaning, the argument may fail unless it adds health-impact evidence specific to that outcome.

Common clarification pitfalls to avoid

• Equivocation: using a key term in one sense in the reasons and a different sense in the conclusion (e.g., “affordable compared to luxury units” in the reason, but “affordable for low-income residents” in the conclusion).
• Over-precision: forcing a numeric threshold when the context doesn’t support it. Sometimes a range or comparison class is more honest (e.g., “among the lowest 25% of rents in the area”).
• One-sided definitions: defining a term to guarantee your preferred outcome (e.g., “ethical means whatever is legal”). Prefer definitions that a reasonable critic could accept as a genuine standard.
• Ignoring the comparison class: “dangerous” compared to what? “successful” relative to what baseline? “affordable” for which income group?

Mini-drills (quick practice)

Drill A: clarify “affordable”

Sentence: “Public transit should be free because fares aren’t affordable.”

• Write two definitions of “affordable” (e.g., income-ratio vs. hardship-based).
• For each definition, list one piece of evidence that would be relevant (e.g., fare share of income for the bottom quintile; survey of riders skipping trips due to cost).

Drill B: separate descriptive and evaluative parts

Sentence: “The new grading policy is unfair because it lowers the average score.”

• Descriptive claim: “It lowers the average score” (needs data, time frame, comparison).
• Evaluative claim: “unfair” (needs a fairness standard: equal opportunity, equal outcomes, transparency, consistency, etc.).
• Bridge standard to test: “If a policy lowers average scores, then it is unfair.” (Is that actually your standard? If not, revise.)