how to Respond to discussion below

Constructing a logical position in research can be boiled down to three different categories. According to Zegarelli (2021) lists the steps as figuring out what is true, take some time to think about it, then draw a conclusion off of the first two steps (para. 1). An argument can be a bunch of premises based on feelings or perception. In a way I feel like this circles back to the inductive and deductive sets of reasonings.

The importance of this in research is to bring credibility or give clear communication about a topic that is being researched. I believe this would be especially true for logical reasoning. This is where someone would take facts on a certain topic then think about counter points to the facts at hand. For example, if we believe water is wet we must support the position with facts and may consider the possibility that water could not be indeed wet. From there we can base a conclusion. Argumentative would still use facts in some way, but I feel that personal position would take root in this instance.

For me, I think the difficulty of the logical position or argument is subjective to how much fact is out there. I believe if you're taking a logical position and there are many sources to pull from the position would be easier to reach. Inversely, if there were some sources out there but not a complete picture of a subject, I would say that argumentative would be easier to form because the facts would be harder to dispute.