Remember, orderly and reliable reasoning brings about logical responses to presented issues.
You must fairly and systematically present examples and evidence to support ideas.

Representative examples should be chosen carefully to support the idea of your response.
Maintain the logic of your writing by avoiding instances that are out of the ordinary.
An extremely positive example will not convince readers of the validity of your point.
An extremely negative example will be equally unconvincing because such situations do not
address actual prevailing circumstances. Use facts, figures, or other technical data to support your ideas. Acknowledge opposing, views. Make your response logical and complete.

Avoid those typical errors in logical thinking. The BIG 9, known as logical
fallacies. You know, the inappropriate or irrelevant connections between actions or ideas.

Hasty generalisation -Do not generalize on the basis of a single example. You have reached a conlusion too quickly, without thoroughly investigating an issue.

Oversimplification -Do not give limited evidence, you ignore subtle variations and exceptions.

Either/or fallacy -This is illogical.
You present your choice that you approve of in positive terms and then present the most extreme alternative in negative terms. There are more than two choices in responding to an issue. Many More.

Begging the question -Do you like circular reasoning ? Do you include in your response
an idea that requires proof but you offer none ? Is it an agreed upon belief, a foregone
conclusion taht needs no elaboration or explanation ?

Fallacies of association -Suggest that ideas or actions are acceptable oe unacceptable depending on the people associated with them. Ideas and actions should be evaluated
on their own merits.

Non sequitors -Conclusion that is not the logical result of the statements that precede it.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc -Is there a cause and effect relationship between two actions or
did one action simply precede the other ?
The effects that you note should be clearly and systematically linked to the causes that you identify.

Ad hominem reasoning -Do not attack the people involved in an issue, respond to the issue.
You have failed to address the attributes of what you are arguing against.

False analogies -Remember an analogy is a comparison built upon relevant points of similarity.

Regards,