| notjustconversation Inquiry is no mere conversation (ordiscussion or dialogue): facilitation of inquiry is hard work!Susan T. Gardner,Director, Vancouver Institute of Philosophy for Children, BC,Canada. There is a long standing controversy in education as towhether education ought to be teacher or student-centred.Interestingly, this controversy parallels the parent vs. childcentred theoretical swings with regard to good parenting. One obviousdifference between the two poles is the mode of communication."Authoritarian" teaching and parenting strategies focus on the needof those who have much to learn to "do as they are told," i.e., theauthority talks, the child listens. "Non-authoritarian" strategiesare anchored in the assumption that youngsters ought to be encouragedto develop their natural interests and talents and hence that it isimportant to allow the children to do the talking and that adultslisten. Both strategies seemed flawed due to the absence of theinherent wisdom of its opposing view. This chasm can be overcome. The Community of Inquiry, apedagogical method used in Philosophy for Children, demands a methodof communication which is able to bridge this gap. A Community ofInquiry is neither teacher-centred and controlled nor student-centredand controlled, but centred on and controlled by the demands oftruth. Truth is absolutely essential to this method; it is onlybecause of progress toward truth that participants are ultimatelyconvinced of the fruitfulness of the process. Truth, however, is ahard taskmaster; it places severe restrictions on participants andputs exacting demands on the facilitator. These inherent restrictionsand demands are too often underplayed, overlooked and sometimesseemingly overly denied by those who, quite correctly emphasise thatultimately this method depends on maintenance and enhancement ofstudent autonomy. This underrating of the role of the facilitator hasled to a severe under-valuing of this otherwise brilliant pedagogicalmethod, but worse, it has left novice teacher/facilitators illprepared to utilise this method successfully. Progress Toward Truth is ImportantThere is perhaps an obvious, though relatively superficial sensein which progress toward truth is vital to the practice of inquiryand that is that if such progress is not made, the term "Community ofInquiry" becomes a misnomer. Properly speaking, in order to be saidto "inquire," one must not only inquire about something (more will besaid about the importance of maintaining focus later on), one mustalso make some progress - at least if such progress is possible. Ifyou are inquiring after my health but do not pause long enough tofind the answer, you cannot be described as genuinely inquiring. Andcertainly if one is said to successfully inquire, surely one musthave a substantially clearer picture of the topic under investigationat the end of the process of inquiry than at the beginning. If aCommunity of Inquiry is to be worthy of its name, it must make someprogress toward "the truth." Aside from the problem conceptual inaccuracy, there are twomore substantial reasons why it is important for a Community ofInquiry to make progress toward truth. The first is that suchprogress is a vital reinforcer of the practice. That is, if thediscussion never goes any-where, if it remains mere conversation thattouches first on one topic and then another, the worthiness of theprocess will never be reinforced by the worthiness of the product.Learning a sport provides a helpful analogy. Even if horseback ridinglessons were both fun and good for one's physical health, if theynever produced a product, i.e., a better horseperson, one'senthusiasm and confidence in the process would inevitably pale, as nodoubt it would for one's instructor. If we want students to besufficiently enamored with the practice that they will utilise withconfidence and enthusiasm the skills and dispositions acquired withinthe framework of the Community of Inquiry outside of the classroomand if we want teachers to take this pedagogy sufficiently seriouslythat they willingly make room for it alongside such clearly importantbasics as reading, writing and arithmetic, then both students andteachers must be convinced that this practice is productive. Likereading, writing and arithmetic, thinking in and of itself or evenenhanced through community inquiry is not an end in itself, its valuelies in the fact that it leads toward truth. If we want the practiceto be valued, we must be sure that it is associated with its intendedproduct. Another reason why progress toward truth is vital to aCommunity of Inquiry is that such progress is necessary ifparticipants are to develop those cluster of skills and habits ofmind that may be uniquely but are at least typically fostered withchronic exposure to a Community of Inquiry (see Table over). Detailsof this important point are not possible within the confines of thepresent conditions, however a brief explanation of some of the itemsin column 2 of the chart (particularly as compared to column 1 inwhich progress toward truth is not presumed and which is too oftenthe product of poorly trained novice facilitators) should serve toillustrate this point.If progress toward truth is not a relatively predictable productof inquiry, one cannot expect the participants of a Community ofInquiry to develop: an inquiring mind (as such a habit is not seen asfruitful); the capacity to see the complex in the relatively mundane(as there is not sufficient focus nor progress to produce a morecomprehensive/complex picture of the issue under inquiry); a deeprespect for others as potential contributors to a highly valuableproduct, i.e., truth (as truth is not the product); a ready abilityfor self-correction in light of more plausible truth claims (as thereis no progress toward truth); a confident under-standing that pursuitof truth requires both patience and perseverance (which quiteobviously can only be developed through frequent pursuits of truth);an appreciation of the difficulty of good reasoning (as the difficulttask of progress toward truth is not experienced); that unique senseof integrity which balances empathetic listening with courageoussupport for one's own point of view (which ultimately depends upon adeep appreciation of the primary importance of truth).In his book, Philosophy goes to School, Matthew Lipmanwrites of the importance of progress toward truth, though his writingis so rich with insight, particularly with regard to the processesand procedures of inquiry that I fear that his comments with regardto the importance of truth as its regulative ideal are too oftenoverlooked. Mat writes:When a class moves to become a community of inquiry, it accepts the discipline of logic and scientific method; it practices listening to one another, learning from one another, building on one another's ideas, respecting one another's point of view, and yet demanding that claims be warranted by evidence and reasons. Once the class as a whole operates upon these procedures, it becomes possible for each member to internalise the practices and procedures of the others, so that one's own thought becomes self-correcting and moves in the direction of impartiality and objectivity. At the same time, each member internalises the attitude of the group toward its own project and procedures, and this translates into care for the tools and instruments of inquiry as well as respect for the ideas (e.g. truth) that serve both to motivate the process and regulate it. (italics added) The Problem: Overestimation of the Role of FacilitationNovices to the practice of co-operative inquiry often get theimpression that success depends largely on "facilitation." This is sofor a number of reasons.1. Both the literature and teacher-guides stress the danger of"over- intervention"Novice facilitators are admonished that if this is to be a genuineinquiry, participants must be able to "follow the inquiry wherever itleads" , "rather than force the children to stay on task, ... (theconversation (should be) flexible enough to follow the students'interests ...," and so on. There is a sense in which all thesemessages are important, particularly when attempting to infuse thepractice of community inquiry into a hitherto relativelyauthoritarian educational atmosphere. However, there is also a sensein which such comments can be highly misleading. Such admonitionscommunicate the impression - frequently uninten-tionally - thatletting go of the reins of power per se is sufficient to create anenvironment in which inquiry will flourish. 2. Both the literature and teacher-guides stress the naturalphilosophical prowess of studentsInterestingly enough, even the very name "Philosophy for Children"may suggest to many that children are natural philo-sophers and that,given an unfettered environment in which quality of thought alone ismonitored, they will engage in genuine philosophical inquiry. Aswell, in their attempt to bolster the confidence of novicefacilitators with regard to their capacity to competently handlephilosophy in the classroom, and perhaps also in their effort toreinforce respect for students which is an important prerequisite fora successful community, teacher-guides sometimes romanticise the"natural" philosophical capacity of youngsters. This belief inchildren's unaided natural philosophical propensity is furtherfostered by such comments as those made by Lipman's in his Philosophyin the Classroom that "under suitable circumstances, a room full ofchildren will pounce on an idea in the way a litter of kittens willpounce on a ball of yarn thrown in their direction. The children willkick the idea around until it has been developed. elaborated upon,and even in some instances applied to life situations ..." (althoughhe goes on to say that the latter usually requires teacherguidance). 3. ModellingOver and over again, advocates of Philosophy for Children inparticular and the Community of Inquiry in general stress theDeweyian belief that teachers in-training must learn by the samemethod they intend to utilise in the classroom. There is as muchmerit in this philosophy as there is in the seeming contradiction ofdidactically teaching others that didactic teaching does not work.'Modelling', therefore, has become the method par excellence by whichthis highly teacher-sensitive practice is supposed to be transmitted.The problem with relying solely on "modeling," however, is that, asis the case with much expertise, the techniques used by outstandingfacilitators are often invisible; to an on-looker, the inquiryprocess may very well appear as if it is proceeding under its ownsteam with the facilitator doing little else than being a trafficcop. Because modeling, masks the intricacies and in particular thephilosophical nuances employed by experts for ensuring a successfulcommunity, this method of "transmission" reinforces the belief that"facilitation" of group discussion alone (albeit up-graded byrigorous attention to the quality of thought), will produce aself-correcting dynamic forward-moving Community of Inquiry. 4. Short-cutsTheir enthusiasm for this outstanding program and its innumerableand often immeasurable as we well as desperately needed benefitscombined with their pragmatic acceptance of the fact that there isvery little educational funding available for novel programs, evenless time, and still less risk-taking propensity on the part oftraditional educators, alongside a voracious hunger for "quick-fix"solutions to mounting educational ills, have prompted advocates ofPhilosophy for Children particular and the practice of CommunityInquiry in general to promote short-cut "short" teacher-trainingprograms (e.g. the National Diffusion network which relies on just afew days of modeling). As finely tuned philosophical intuitionscannot be nurtured in a short period of time but group facilitationcan, these short-lived modelling sessions further reinforces thepropensity for teachers-in-training to focus on acquiring the skillsof facilitation alone. 5. "Canned" Questions and CommentsLast but, I fear, not least, and despite their warnings withregard to the danger of their employment, the lists of Rogerian typequestions and comments that advocates offer as an aid to facilitatinggroup discussion, further reinforces the belief that if a facilitatorcan keep the conversation going with such question as "What reasonsdo you have for saying that?" or "Could you clarify that remark?" orsuch comment as "You appear to be saying that ..." or "Well then,from your point of view ...," the result will be a successfulCommunity of Inquiry. Without resort to an independent measure ofsuccess, namely progress toward truth about something, many a novice"facilitator" will come to believe that if the conversation hasoccupied the allotted time, and if most if not all of the studentshave participated, the result is what Philosophy for Children and aCommunity of Inquiry is all about. Facilitation Alone Rarely Progresses Toward "Truth"Facilitation alone, when the participants are all or mostlyseasoned philosophers, may be sufficient to ensure progress towardtruth. Philosophers, after all, have been professionally trained totrack truth. Non-philosophers, however, have no such training andthere is little reason to believe that the mere kiss of facilitationwill bring them up to scratch. If that were the case, ifphilosophical propensity needed only group discussion in order toflourish, then what we are attempting to import into the classroomthrough Philosophy for Children would surely occur relativelyfrequently outside the class-room: in the playground, for instance,or in the teacher's lounge; indeed in much of our everydayinteraction. And again, if it were true that the capacity forphilosophical thought where latently widespread waiting only theforum of group discussion in order to become manifest, then surelythose who would be most proficient in teaching philosophy to childrenas well as those who would be most proficient in teaching teachershow to teach philosophy to children would not be those who have a PhD in philosophy - a necessary qualification according to experts -but rather those with a degree that focused on communication skills.Indeed, if philosophical propensity, intuition and insight were soeasily acquired, one wonders why acquiring a philosophical Ph D issuch a long, arduous process.Facilitation alone is not sufficient. Simply letting a discussionfollow "its course" will not create a Community of Inquiry for thevery reason that without explicit intervention by the facilitator,the discussion will rarely follow "a course". And without"philosophical direction," the discussion will almost certainly notfollow "a philosophical course". It may very well be true that thefirst step in successfully inducting traditional teachers into thepractice of Philosophy for Children is to convince them to "let go ofthe traditional reins of authority". The next step, however, must beto help them create a new set of reins; ones that will help them (asopposed to leaving it up to the participants) to pounce on aphilosophical topic when one emerges; that will help them maintaindirection despite frequent digressions (as opposed to lettingwhatever will be, be) and give them the tenacity and insight to pushtoward truth - the ultimate goal of the endeavour. Facilitation ishard, sometimes gruelling work. More than anything else, the factthat this practice is often exhausting testifies to the truth of theclaim that this is no mere letting go. One the other hand the factthat the practice is almost always exhilarating if done successfullytestifies to the reinforcing power of its goal: a step closer totruth. A Solution to the Problem: Depth, Philosophical Sensitivityand Tenacity Must be Added to FacilitationAside from learning the "art" of facilitation, if teachers aregoing to become experts in leading a Community of Inquiry, they willneed:1. specific training in pushing for depth in the dialogue, 2.assistance in becoming attuned to topics that are philosophicallyfruitful and 3. encouragement to maintain focus despite the frequentdigressions that inevitably result from the format (students who, inwaiting for their turn to talk, revert back to points that may now beirrelevant). 1. Pushing for DepthAside from eliciting comments, clarification and justification,the facilitator must be encouraged to push for more in-depth thinkingon the part of her/his students. That is, the facilitator needs to bepersistent in ensuring that students not only justify their answersbut justify their justifications, i.e., be prepared to articulate, orat least try to articulate, the thought that went into theircomments. The facil-itator's questions that 'push' for depth aresimilar to, though more extensive and 'deeper' than, those that'merely' promote 'good thinking.' One way of thinking of it is as thesecond why. Thus for example, some answers in a recent classroomdiscussion to the question of why people say negative things aboutother people's things (which related to the incident in which Gussaid to Kio that her work was better) were: Gus is jealous; Gus is ashow off; this was a 'getting back' situation; Gus wants to be thebest; Gus wants to be cool; Gus wants to push Kio around, perhapsbecause she is younger or perhaps because she is older, and so on.These are all plausible answers to the first level of 'why'. However,a 'why' or a series of 'whys' to these answers would have helped thediscussion to move to a deeper level. Why do we say negative thingswhen we are showing off? Why do we need to show off? Does it work?Does saying negative things make us feel better? If so, why does itmake us feel better? If sit doesn't make us feel better, why do we doit? One student said, for example, that saying negative thingsdoesn't work anyway - that just because Gus says that hers is betterdoesn't mean that Kio will believe that hers is better. This commentseems obvious enough to stand on its own; on the other hand, it leadsto the perplexing question of why we do these things when presumablywe know perfectly well that they won't work. A cluster of follow-upquestions may have led to a genuinely penetrating philosophicaldiscussion. If Gus didn't believe that she was going to convince Kiothat hers was better, why did she say that remark? What was shetrying to do? Do you think she succeeded in whatever she was tryingto do? Do you think it made her feel better? Might there have been analternative course of action that would have been more successful inmaking her feel better - if she were jealous, or trying to show off,etc?If students believe that they can say whatever comes into theirheads without having to show how this is important or relevant withrespect to the topic under discussion, without having to engage inconcept-ual analysis, without having to back their claims withreasons, without having to worry about being consistent, they maytend to say whatever comes into their heads, and whatever comes intotheir heads may very well be boring and not worth listening to! Ifstudents are going to learn that it is worthwhile listening to oneanother, the facilitator must ensure that what students have to sayis worth hearing. The fact that everyone has something to say that isworth listening to, does not mean that everything that anyone says isworth hearing. Indeed, quite contrary. If not much thought is putinto what is said, there seems little point in wasting one's time andeffort in attempting to analyse content, i.e., seriously listening.And the fact that a good deal of what people have to say (includingtheir internal dialogue) is said without much 'thought', is the veryreason why programs such as P4C are so important, i.e., suchprograms, hopefully, will induce students to think. This, then, isthe job of the facilitator: to ensure that s/he is merciless ininsisting that students be prepared to lay bare the thought processbehind what they say. When they become aware that this is theenvironment into which they speak, they will be more apt to do somethinking before they open their mouths, i.e., what will come out oftheir mouths will be worth listening to. Having said that the facilitator must be ruthless inensuring quality of thought, relevance, consistently (or theawareness of the lack thereof) with the thoughts of others as well asthe topic under discussion, the facilitator must also create anenvironment which is 'relatively' risk-free. If students believe thatthey will be 'crucified' or ridiculed or embarrassed if they are notable to do what in fact they are not yet able to do, i.e., thinkwell, they may be reluctant to speak up in class at all and then thewhole process will come to a grinding halt. So the facilitator needsto be merciful with regard to the quality of what is actually saidwhile being merciless with regard to the attempt for depth.This is serious business; all earnest attempts to come to gripswith the issue - regardless of their seeming audacity - are welcome;mere input in order to join 'the chatter' is not. The point of thisexercise is not for students to find their silent voices; the pointis to push for depth in reasoning in the name of progress towardtruth. The easiest way for a facilitator to create an environmentthat elicits depth of thought is to 'jump in there with them'. Thisis a question to which the facilitator herself does not know theanswer (which is one reason why philosophical topics are particularlyfruitful as a focus of a Community of Inquiry) but it is a questionthat can initiate a fascinating exploration which the facilitator isprepared to lead . Since this exploration is important, it iscritical that, as team leader, the facilitator get the best out ofevery team member severally and collectively. 2. A Philosophical TopicRon Reed, writes in his article 'On the Art and Craft ofDialogue,'What is essential then to the process of inquiry is what AlfredNorth Whitehead termed 'scholarly ignorance'. If the traditionalclassroom praises the accumulation of information, the community ofinquiry must prize its own ignorance. The very recognition that thereis something we do not know, that there is something important to begained by the process, is what gives the community its existence.This need for 'scholarly ignorance', perhaps more than anythingelse justifies the inclusion of philosophy within an alreadyovercrowded curriculum. In virtually every other subject, the teacherhas information to impart or a point to get across. S/he is theauthority. Even if s/he tries to utilize the Community of Inquirymethod within the confines of another subject, the reformulation ofquestions so that a philosophical bent may be necessary if thecommunity is to generate the enthusiasm of genuine inquiry.Non-philosophical questions tend to have definitive answers thatusually cannot be decided through dialogue alone. Dialogue on thesesorts of questions, i.e., non-philosophical ones, will result in aseries of conjectures which may or may not be fruitful and, in anycase, will usually require a follow up with empirical investigationor the acquisition of concrete knowledge if progress toward truth isto be attained. As well, use of the Community of Inquiry whenfocusing on non-philosophical issues must be done with extreme careas it may lead to resentment of the method rather than a piquing ofinterest. If the teacher already has the answer, why should thestudents waste time inquiring about something that the teacheralready knows and who, with very little effort, couldcommunicate? A philosophical focus is unique in the ease with which anatmosphere of 'scholarly ignorance' all around can be created and isthus, par excellence, a focus that is generative of genuine inquirythat can be enthusiastically and authentically modelled by thefacilitator. Non-philosopher facilitators, therefore, must bespecifically trained and aided, i.e., outside of and apart from themodelling arena, to distinguish questions which are philosophicallyfruitful from those which are not. A question such as "Why did he say'shut up'?" for instance, would be of little value as a focal pointof inquiry if it remained on the empirical psychological level withconjectures such as "perhaps he was upset," "perhaps he had agrudge," etc. These are questions to which we cannot possibly knowthe answer unless we have access to the facts of the situation. Thereal fruit of such questions, rather, lies in their philosophicalbase namely in such musings as why we say unpleasant things to oneanother or what role the response 'shut up' seems to play in NorthAmerican interpersonal interaction, and so on. Since this is aquestion to which no one, including the teacher, knows the answer,but since this is a question to which in-depth dialogical inquirywill nonetheless bring genuine insight, this is a question which willpromote in-depth reasoning both severally and collectively. The ease with which many teachers - indeed many care-takers - use'empathising' techniques by which to teach youngsters importantlessons is yet another reason why novice facilitators need assistancein promoting a philosophical perspective. In a recent classroomdiscussion about 'why people make fun of other people,' a novicefacilitator asked her young students what it felt like to be made funof. This apparently innocuous even seemingly valuable'psychologically oriented' question derailed a potentiallyphilosophically fruitful inquiry. After being asked to focus on whatit feels like to be made fun of, children will get the message loudand clear that such behaviour is wrong. Given that this is the caseand given that this is a message that a very important authorityfigure is trying to transmit, it would take a very self-confidentchild indeed to admit, even to her/himself, that s/he is ever guiltyof such behaviour. The ensuing discussion may thus - as it seemed toin this case - reinforce a kind of simplistic self-deception: it wasalways some other 'mean' person who engages in such behaviour. Thereality, of course is very different. Most if not all children makefun of others. However, if children are going to gain control of thissort of behaviour, i.e., gain the capacity for 'reasoned' selfrestraint, they are going to have to recognise when people likethemselves engage in such behaviour and why people like themselves doit and to what degree this sort of behaviour contributes to, ordetracts from their conception of a 'good life'. A philosophicalperspective may very well take into account the sort of empatheticinsight gained through imaginatively reversing roles; however toqualify as philosophical, a perspective must have both breadth anddepth; it must be able to honestly visit all sides of an issue andperceive connect-ions to long term goals, interests, implications andramifications. A philosopher, after all, is a lover of wisdom andhence to be worthy of the name can be neither tunnel visioned norshort sighted. The goal here is not merely good behaviour based onemotional identification (which in any case is notoriouslyunpredictable); the goal here is good judgment based on maximumreasoned input. 3. Finding and Maintaining DirectionIn and of itself, a complete change of topic is not anillegitimate move in an inquiry process. If the initial topic doesnot seem very fruitful and a far more interesting topic comes up, thecommunity ought to feel free to follow this new lead. There is adanger, however, if this happens too frequently. As had already beenstressed, participants of a Community of Inquiry must come to believethat, aside from being enjoyable in and of itself, the process isproductive and that the result is a product of the process. Thispoint can best be understood against the background of a largerphilosophical picture. Through the process itself, youngsters willlearn to listen to the points of view of others, to self-correct inlight of countervailing evidence, to enjoy the liberating impact oftrying out new thoughts, they will learn that it is important thatopinions be justified, that reasons be offered for suggested coursesof action and that not any reason is acceptable and so on. However,the discussion has to go somewhere and where it goes must be in thedirect-ion of truth. In order for a Community of Inquiry tosuccessfully produce a product, it will generally have to retainfocus on a single philosophical issue that is either explicitly orimplicitly contained in the original question. This is the job of thefacilitator. The best way for non-philosophers to find and maintain focus on afruitful topic is to have the discussion on a day following thereading of the novel and the picking of a question. That way, beforeany discussion begins, the facilitator has time to reflect on thephilosophical puzzles imbedded in the question picked and hence canhave a 'Guiding Idea' by which to monitor her own responses(eg.'Focus Sheet' below). The facilitator ought nevertheless to keepin mind that 'Guiding Ideas' are dangerous for two reasons. The mostobvious one is that they may prompt the facilitator to 'control' thedirection of the discussion from the outset and hence steal thediscussion from the participants. Constant maneuvers such as this maynot only lead parti-cipants to believe that they are beingmanipulated by a hidden agenda but may also undermine theparticipants own belief that they themselves can, with some patience,track truth. This in turn will preclude the development of the sortof self-confidence that is essential for transfer outside of theclassroom, i.e., for genuine philosophical reflection outside thePhilosophy for Children setting. The second danger of formulating a'Guiding Idea' is that it may blind the facilitator to otherphilosophical puzzles embedded in the question and short-circuit analternative perhaps more fruitful and relevant discussion.All of which is to say that facilitating acommunity of inquiry is a genuine art. If the facilitator canremember that progress toward truth is the goal but that it is a goalthat can only be reached through the efforts of the participants, shemay be able to facilitate the tracking of truth by keeping in mindthe former point while allowing the discussion considerable 'slack'by keeping in mind the latter. I suppose the moral of the story isthat the facilitator ought to feel a constant source of tension as aresult of being continuously pulled between the two ideals of 'truth'and 'participant autonomy'. Focus Sheet for TeachersName: Grade: Date: Source: Question picked: Possible associated philosophical questions: (to be filled in before discussion) Actual focus of philosophical inquiry What we learned: Follow-up: What we learned from follow-up: ConclusionIf a community of inquiry is to be successful both in its maingoal of moving toward truth and its side goals of enhancing goodthinking and developing good character, it will require the firmguidance of an ever vigilant facilitator who maintains direction andforces depth with respect to the philosophical truth toward which theinquiry points. After a good deal of practice in facilitatingdiscussion so as to maximize student autonomy, novice facilitatorswill need assistance in the delicate art of picking up the reins ofdirection once more; not in order to import truth which in any caseis equally unknown to the facilitator as it is to the participants,but in order to ensure progress toward the goal which ultimatelymakes the endeavor worthwhile.The novice facilitator must always keep in mind that her long termgoal is to be much more than a facilitator. She must also be a modelin her passion for truth; a dictator in her demands for excellence inreasoning; a philosophical sensitiser in demonstrating a capacity tofocus on the philosophically fruitful; and a leader in ensuring thatdirection is maintained. We will do novices no small favour byletting them know at the outset that 'inquiry is no mereconversation' and that 'facilitation of inquiry is hard work!'Gardner, S. (1996). "Inquiry is no mere conversation." Critical& Creative Thinking 16.2, 41- 49. (Deakin UniversityMelbourne).Reproduced with permission by this webmaster| Reasoning skills page | COIpage |
|
