ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses K. Galotti's distinction is employed for the limited purpose of framing the issues. In defense of Galotti's distinction, one might argue that formal and everyday reasoning should be considered family-resemblance concepts. The research findings are significant, both because they tend to validate the distinction between formal and everyday reasoning and because they comprise a set of "core phenomena" that must be explained in any general theory of reasoning. Argumentation deserves to be considered an example of reasoning, both because it is based on an appeal to reasons, and because it involves inferential processes. The study of everyday reasoning should be expanded to include the study of argumentation as it occurs in everyday situations, as well as the study of everyday problem solving. The chapter focuses on the implications of the process of sociogenesis for an understanding of formal and everyday reasoning.
