A new study by Ermioni Seremeta, Monique Flecken, Menno Reijven, and Jean Wagemans takes a fresh look at one of the oldest debates in reasoning research: are humans fundamentally logical thinkers, or are we guided primarily by pragmatic expectations? Using two controlled experiments on conditional arguments, the authors show that the dichotomy is false. The relationship between logic and pragmatics is not competitive but interactive.
In Experiment 1, participants evaluated classic if/then conditionals (Modus Ponens and Affirming the Consequent). The results replicated a familiar pattern: people struggle with invalid inferences. But here’s the crucial twist: when the content of the argument violated pragmatic expectations, participants became better at detecting logical invalidity. Reaction times increased, suggesting deeper deliberation. Pragmatic conflict did not override logic, but it triggered more careful logical processing.
In Experiment 2, the same inferential relations were reformulated using lever-based structures from the Periodic Table of Arguments instead of explicit if/then cues. This structural shift produced a striking effect: participants became generally resistant to conditional inference. They were better at rejecting invalid arguments but worse at recognizing valid ones. Without explicit semantic scaffolding, deductive reasoning became less accessible.
Across both studies, pragmatic congruency alone did not predict accuracy. Instead, accuracy depended on the interaction between logical form and pragmatic expectations. When logical structure and pragmatic cues aligned, performance improved. When they clashed, performance sometimes improved through deliberation. But pragmatics never simply replaced logic as the guiding standard.
The broader implication is significant: reasoning is neither purely formal nor purely contextual. Pragmatics modulates the accessibility of logical form. Violations of expectation can slow us down and invite reflection; semantic markers like if/then help anchor deductive interpretation. Logical competence appears to depend on how arguments are linguistically and contextually framed. Rather than abandoning logic or redefining rationality in purely probabilistic or pragmatic terms, this research suggests a more situated account of logos: human reasoning operates at the interface of formal structure and communicative context.
For scholars of argumentation, cognitive science, and rhetoric, the message is clear: understanding reasoning requires examining not just logical validity or pragmatic plausibility in isolation, but how they dynamically shape each other in real time.
Seremeta, E., Flecken, M., Reijven, M. H., & Wagemans, J.H.M. (2026). Experimental Insights into the Influence of logic and pragmatics on conditional argument evaluation. Argumentation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-026-09691-6
LANCAR 