UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
College of Education
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
RCE2601: Research and Critical Reasoning
Assignment 2 – Semester 1, 2026
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
RCE2601
Module Code:
Research and Critical Reasoning
Module Name:
Assignment 2
Assignment:
30 June 2026
Due Date:
100
Total Marks:
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for RCE2601 – UNISA 2026
,UNISA | RCE2601 Research and Critical Reasoning – Assignment 2
Question 1: Inductive and Deductive Reasoning, and Common Logical Fallacies
Reasoning is central to research and academic argumentation. According to Sekhar and Murty
(2024), deductive reasoning follows a top-down methodology moving from the general to the
specific, while inductive reasoning follows a bottom-up methodology moving from specific
observations to broader generalisations. Understanding these two modes of reasoning, and
identifying logical fallacies, equips researchers and students with the critical tools needed to
evaluate arguments and design credible studies.
1.1 Categorisation: Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning
The ten statements below are categorised according to whether they reflect inductive or deduc-
tive reasoning, based on the direction of the logical movement between general principles and
specific observations (Creswell and Creswell, 2018).
Key Distinction
Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to a general conclusion. De-
ductive reasoning moves from a general premise or rule to a specific conclusion.
Deductive arguments are evaluated as valid or invalid; inductive arguments are evalu-
ated as strong or weak (Sekhar and Murty, 2024).
Implementation Insight
In South African higher education, the distinction between inductive and deductive
reasoning is particularly important for research proposals. The inductive approach is
typical of qualitative dissertations at institutions such as UNISA, where researchers
move from observed classroom challenges to theoretical frameworks. The deductive ap-
proach is more common in quantitative studies, where hypotheses derived from theory
are tested against survey data (Mertens, 2014, cited in Ijem, 2024).
Page 2 of 15
,UNISA | RCE2601 Research and Critical Reasoning – Assignment 2
Table 1: Classification of Statements into Inductive and Deductive Reasoning
No. Statement (summary) Classification
1.1.1 Reviewing several articles showed larger samples produce more Inductive
reliable results; therefore, larger samples are generally better. reasoning
1.1.2 All credible studies are evidence-based; this study is evidence- Deductive
based; therefore, this study is credible. reasoning
1.1.3 Most students who practise critical thinking improve problem- Inductive
solving, so regular practice likely strengthens reasoning. reasoning
1.1.4 If an argument contains fallacies then it is weak; this argument Deductive
contains fallacies; therefore, it is weak. reasoning
1.1.5 All valid conclusions must follow from evidence; this conclusion Deductive
does not; therefore, it is not valid. reasoning
1.1.6 In three group projects, effective communicators scored higher; Inductive
therefore, communication usually contributes to success. reasoning
1.1.7 Many researchers using credible sources produce stronger argu- Inductive
ments, so reliable evidence generally improves academic work. reasoning
1.1.8 If data is collected using biased methods, results are unreliable; Deductive
the researcher used biased sampling; therefore, results are bi- reasoning
ased.
1.1.9 All plagiarism violates academic integrity; the student copied Deductive
without citation; therefore, the student violated integrity rules. reasoning
1.1.10 Several controlled experiments produced consistent outcomes, Inductive
suggesting controlled environments increase research accuracy. reasoning
1.2 Identification of Common Logical Fallacies
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that undermines the validity of an argument. The
statements below are each matched to the specific fallacy they represent (Copi et al., 2019).
Critical Consideration
Note on recurring fallacy types: Both the False Dichotomy and the Circular Rea-
soning fallacies appear more than once above. False dichotomies present only two
options when more exist. Circular reasoning, also called the “begging the question” fal-
lacy, uses the conclusion as a premise, creating a logically empty argument that cannot
be used to establish any new claim (Copi et al., 2019).
Page 3 of 15
, UNISA | RCE2601 Research and Critical Reasoning – Assignment 2
Table 2: Identification of Logical Fallacies
No. Statement (summary) Fallacy Type
1.2.1 You should not accept Sizwe’s argument because she Ad Hominem Fallacy
failed her last exam.
1.2.2 The lecturer’s research cannot be trusted because he is Ad Hominem Fallacy
too young and inexperienced.
1.2.3 This textbook is definitely correct because the principal Appeal to Authority
recommended it, so no questioning is needed. Fallacy
1.2.4 A learner must either study science subjects or be False Dichotomy Fallacy
unsuccessful in life.
1.2.5 One teacher was unprepared; therefore, all teachers at Hasty Generalisation
the school are unprofessional. Fallacy
1.2.6 If the lecturer grants one extension, eventually no stu- Slippery Slope Fallacy
dent will ever submit work on time again.
1.2.7 If learners use calculators in one test, they will stop Slippery Slope Fallacy
learning to count in Mathematics completely.
1.2.8 This article is trustworthy because the researcher is reli- Circular Reasoning Fal-
able, and the researcher is reliable because the article is lacy
trustworthy.
1.2.9 Either students attend every lecture, or they do not False Dichotomy Fallacy
care about their education at all.
1.2.10 Students should follow school rules because rules must Circular Reasoning Fal-
be obeyed, and they must be obeyed because they are lacy
rules.
Question 2: Crafting a Sound Problem Statement
A sound problem statement situates the study within a recognised source of research problems,
communicates the gap or need being addressed, and justifies why the investigation is neces-
sary. Kumar (2019) identifies five common sources from which educational research problems
emerge: practical challenges, gaps in existing knowledge, contradictions in research findings,
policy questions, and theoretical questions.
2.1 Identifying the Source of Each Problem Statement Scenario
Each scenario below is matched to its corresponding source of the research problem, drawing
on Kumar’s (2019) framework.
Implementation Insight
In the South African context, problem statements often emerge simultaneously from
policy questions and practical challenges, as the realities of under-resourced schools
frequently conflict with the aspirations of national education policies. A well-crafted
problem statement must make the source of the problem explicit so that the research
Page 4 of 15
College of Education
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
RCE2601: Research and Critical Reasoning
Assignment 2 – Semester 1, 2026
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
RCE2601
Module Code:
Research and Critical Reasoning
Module Name:
Assignment 2
Assignment:
30 June 2026
Due Date:
100
Total Marks:
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for RCE2601 – UNISA 2026
,UNISA | RCE2601 Research and Critical Reasoning – Assignment 2
Question 1: Inductive and Deductive Reasoning, and Common Logical Fallacies
Reasoning is central to research and academic argumentation. According to Sekhar and Murty
(2024), deductive reasoning follows a top-down methodology moving from the general to the
specific, while inductive reasoning follows a bottom-up methodology moving from specific
observations to broader generalisations. Understanding these two modes of reasoning, and
identifying logical fallacies, equips researchers and students with the critical tools needed to
evaluate arguments and design credible studies.
1.1 Categorisation: Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning
The ten statements below are categorised according to whether they reflect inductive or deduc-
tive reasoning, based on the direction of the logical movement between general principles and
specific observations (Creswell and Creswell, 2018).
Key Distinction
Inductive reasoning moves from specific observations to a general conclusion. De-
ductive reasoning moves from a general premise or rule to a specific conclusion.
Deductive arguments are evaluated as valid or invalid; inductive arguments are evalu-
ated as strong or weak (Sekhar and Murty, 2024).
Implementation Insight
In South African higher education, the distinction between inductive and deductive
reasoning is particularly important for research proposals. The inductive approach is
typical of qualitative dissertations at institutions such as UNISA, where researchers
move from observed classroom challenges to theoretical frameworks. The deductive ap-
proach is more common in quantitative studies, where hypotheses derived from theory
are tested against survey data (Mertens, 2014, cited in Ijem, 2024).
Page 2 of 15
,UNISA | RCE2601 Research and Critical Reasoning – Assignment 2
Table 1: Classification of Statements into Inductive and Deductive Reasoning
No. Statement (summary) Classification
1.1.1 Reviewing several articles showed larger samples produce more Inductive
reliable results; therefore, larger samples are generally better. reasoning
1.1.2 All credible studies are evidence-based; this study is evidence- Deductive
based; therefore, this study is credible. reasoning
1.1.3 Most students who practise critical thinking improve problem- Inductive
solving, so regular practice likely strengthens reasoning. reasoning
1.1.4 If an argument contains fallacies then it is weak; this argument Deductive
contains fallacies; therefore, it is weak. reasoning
1.1.5 All valid conclusions must follow from evidence; this conclusion Deductive
does not; therefore, it is not valid. reasoning
1.1.6 In three group projects, effective communicators scored higher; Inductive
therefore, communication usually contributes to success. reasoning
1.1.7 Many researchers using credible sources produce stronger argu- Inductive
ments, so reliable evidence generally improves academic work. reasoning
1.1.8 If data is collected using biased methods, results are unreliable; Deductive
the researcher used biased sampling; therefore, results are bi- reasoning
ased.
1.1.9 All plagiarism violates academic integrity; the student copied Deductive
without citation; therefore, the student violated integrity rules. reasoning
1.1.10 Several controlled experiments produced consistent outcomes, Inductive
suggesting controlled environments increase research accuracy. reasoning
1.2 Identification of Common Logical Fallacies
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that undermines the validity of an argument. The
statements below are each matched to the specific fallacy they represent (Copi et al., 2019).
Critical Consideration
Note on recurring fallacy types: Both the False Dichotomy and the Circular Rea-
soning fallacies appear more than once above. False dichotomies present only two
options when more exist. Circular reasoning, also called the “begging the question” fal-
lacy, uses the conclusion as a premise, creating a logically empty argument that cannot
be used to establish any new claim (Copi et al., 2019).
Page 3 of 15
, UNISA | RCE2601 Research and Critical Reasoning – Assignment 2
Table 2: Identification of Logical Fallacies
No. Statement (summary) Fallacy Type
1.2.1 You should not accept Sizwe’s argument because she Ad Hominem Fallacy
failed her last exam.
1.2.2 The lecturer’s research cannot be trusted because he is Ad Hominem Fallacy
too young and inexperienced.
1.2.3 This textbook is definitely correct because the principal Appeal to Authority
recommended it, so no questioning is needed. Fallacy
1.2.4 A learner must either study science subjects or be False Dichotomy Fallacy
unsuccessful in life.
1.2.5 One teacher was unprepared; therefore, all teachers at Hasty Generalisation
the school are unprofessional. Fallacy
1.2.6 If the lecturer grants one extension, eventually no stu- Slippery Slope Fallacy
dent will ever submit work on time again.
1.2.7 If learners use calculators in one test, they will stop Slippery Slope Fallacy
learning to count in Mathematics completely.
1.2.8 This article is trustworthy because the researcher is reli- Circular Reasoning Fal-
able, and the researcher is reliable because the article is lacy
trustworthy.
1.2.9 Either students attend every lecture, or they do not False Dichotomy Fallacy
care about their education at all.
1.2.10 Students should follow school rules because rules must Circular Reasoning Fal-
be obeyed, and they must be obeyed because they are lacy
rules.
Question 2: Crafting a Sound Problem Statement
A sound problem statement situates the study within a recognised source of research problems,
communicates the gap or need being addressed, and justifies why the investigation is neces-
sary. Kumar (2019) identifies five common sources from which educational research problems
emerge: practical challenges, gaps in existing knowledge, contradictions in research findings,
policy questions, and theoretical questions.
2.1 Identifying the Source of Each Problem Statement Scenario
Each scenario below is matched to its corresponding source of the research problem, drawing
on Kumar’s (2019) framework.
Implementation Insight
In the South African context, problem statements often emerge simultaneously from
policy questions and practical challenges, as the realities of under-resourced schools
frequently conflict with the aspirations of national education policies. A well-crafted
problem statement must make the source of the problem explicit so that the research
Page 4 of 15
