Abstract

This empirical investigation examined how ordinary language users resolved disagreements over the solutions to categorical syllogisms. Forty-six participants completed puzzles in logic. After completing the puzzles, participants were then randomly paired into 23 to compare their answers and to resolve 159 disagreements. Results indicate that the most frequently used strategies for resolving disagreements centered on: (a) arguing over the merits of the position (47% of the time) and (b) appealing to past solutions as a means of addressing current disputes (28% of the time). In addition, the data revealed that the most frequently used strategy (arguing the merits of the positions) was no more effective than random choice (52% increase in correct solutions) while the strategy of appealing to past solutions significantly aided dyads in reaching correct solutions (70% increase in correct solutions)