Which type of reasoning requires pairs of reasons to work together to support a conclusion?

The type of reasoning that requires pairs of reasons to work together to support a conclusion is complementary or dependent reasons. This reasoning structure suggests that two or more reasons are interconnected in a way that their combined effect strengthens the support for the conclusion. Each reason complements the other, adding depth and coherence to the argument.

For example, if one reason alone might not convincingly support a claim, when paired with a complementary reason, they work together to present a more robust case. This is essential in advocacy and debate, where the goal is often to persuade an audience, and having reasons that effectively collaborate enhances the overall argument's effectiveness.

In contrast, independent reasons can stand alone without requiring additional support, while incompatible and contradictory reasons do not work together at all, as they either conflict with each other or fail to align in supporting the conclusion. Thus, the strength of complementary reasons lies in their ability to enhance and fortify the argument when presented together.