Abstract
The present paper offers two processing models of how reasoners solve categorical syllogisms. The models are based on traditional statements of the atmosphere effect and the conversion hypothesis. A test of the two models shows that previous studies of formal reasoning have unnecessarily restricted the scope of the hypotheses and have failed to compare them on the critical conditions and in their intended senses. Both models are reasonably accurate in predicting the overall distribution of errors. While the feature selection model is superior to the conversion model in predicting the decisions on a set of critical problems, the underlying assumption of the feature selection model is not supported by the data.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
