Introductory video for this article — we recommend watching before reading
We often say that a child is “reasoning”, but not all speech is reasoning. A child may fantasise, repeat something they have heard, or speak impulsively – and all of this is perfectly normal.
Reasoning begins when a child explains why they think something. In reasoning, connections are mentioned: causes or consequences.
In such cases, a thought becomes not simply a statement, but something that can be discussed: it can be clarified, tested, or changed. This is exactly what calm questions from an adult can support – not in order to correct the child, but to give them the opportunity to think aloud and make sense of their own thought.
An important clarification should be made: everything we say about argumentation applies not only to children’s speech, but also to the speech of adults. We can analyse not only a child’s reasoning, but also our own and that of other adults.
Imagine the following situation: a child says, “I want to wear the blue T-shirt.” This is their opinion, their choice. But if they add, “…because it has a dinosaur on it, and we talked about dinosaurs at nursery today,” this is already an argument.
An argument is not simply an explanation, but a justification – a link between a thought and its reason.
An argument answers the question “Why do I think this?” and makes the thought understandable not only to the child themselves, but also to other people.
An argument may be based:
In every case, it adds clarity.
It is important to distinguish an argument from simple repetition or an emotional reaction. If a child says, “I’m not eating the soup because I’m not!”, this is not an argument, but a refusal. But if they say, “I’m not eating the soup because it’s too salty today,” this is already an attempt to justify their position. Even if the reason seems insignificant to us, it matters to the child – and this is the beginning of conscious thinking.
Children are only beginning to learn how to think and speak consistently, so their first arguments are often naïve, emotional, or logically unstable.
And this is absolutely normal. Our task is not to criticise mistakes, but to help children express themselves in a more reasoned way.
Here are some of the most common logical mistakes. They occur in both children and adults.
Repetition Instead of Explanation (Tautology)
The child “loops” the thought back on itself:
“I don’t want to go to bed because I don’t want to.”
There is no new meaning or explanation here – only a repetition of the refusal.
Contradiction Within the Argument
The child contradicts themselves, often without noticing it:
“I’m not going to eat porridge because I love it, but I don’t want it today.”
The two statements cannot both be fully true at the same time – this is a good moment to ask a clarifying question.
Incomplete Argument
The child gives only part of an explanation, which does not provide a full picture:
“I’m not going to play with Peter because he’s bad.”
But what does “bad” mean? What exactly did he do? Without details, the argument remains unclear.
Undifferentiated Argument
The argument could apply to many different options and does not explain the specific choice:
“I want to watch the cartoon about cars because it’s interesting.”
But other cartoons might also be interesting – why this one in particular?
Desire as an Argument
Instead of an explanation, there is simply an expression of desire:
“Buy me this doll because I want it!”
This is not an argument, but an emotional request.
Emotional Argument Without Justification
“I’m not wearing these trousers because they’re horrible!”
There is a feeling behind this statement, but no objective reason yet – perhaps the trousers itch or feel uncomfortable, but the child is not yet able to formulate this clearly.
Young children (under 5–7 years old) are supposedly incapable of argumentation because it is too difficult for them
In fact:
The ability to produce simple arguments appears as early as the second or third year of life. Children aged 2–4 already make statements (“I won’t!”) and support them with reasons, however simple: references to rules (“you can’t do that”), physical properties (“it’s hot”), or desires (“because I want to”). Research shows that children already sense the difference between strong and weak arguments – for example, they prefer perceptual arguments (based on what can be seen) to circular ones (which simply repeat the same thing).
Children’s arguments and disputes are always negative – just conflict, capriciousness, or disobedience
In fact:
For children, disagreement is one of the main learning environments for the development of thinking. It is precisely the encounter of different viewpoints that triggers the process of justification. In disputes with peers or adults, children learn to formulate their own position, listen to others, search for counterarguments, and negotiate. This is not chaos, but a complex social and cognitive activity.
The main purpose of argumentation is to defeat an opponent and prove oneself right
In fact:
Research shows that in children’s communities – especially among peers – argumentation more often serves social and cooperative functions. Through argumentation, children establish and change the rules of play, build relationships, distribute roles, and co-construct meanings. Often, “winning” does not mean defeating another person, but finding a shared solution or simply maintaining an engaging interaction.
Children learn to argue only through adults, because adults are role models
In fact:
Although the adult’s role as a guide and provider of more complex language models is invaluable, communication with peers is no less important. Among peers, children are in a situation of relative equality, where they cannot simply appeal to authority (“because I said so”). They need to persuade, negotiate, and search for common ground. Arguments among peers are often more inventive and more directly connected to children’s immediate interests.
Argumentation consists only of words
In fact:
Children, especially younger ones, actively use gestures, intonation, facial expressions, and actions (for example, showing how something breaks) in order to support their position. It is important to notice all the ways in which a child communicates their thought.
These myths encourage parents and educators to suppress children’s natural forms of discussion, underestimate their importance, and miss crucial opportunities for the gentle and effective development of critical thinking.
Understanding the real picture helps transform everyday “arguments” and endless “why?” questions into fertile ground for growth.
If an adult listens to the child’s answer to the end without interrupting or correcting immediately
The child is developing an agency. The child feels that their thought has value, even if it is still imprecise. They are not afraid to speak and think aloud because they do not expect immediate judgement or correction.
If an adult asks questions that invite reflection rather than guessing the “right answer” (“Why do you think that?”, “What follows from that?”)
The child is developing a taste for thinking. Thinking is experienced as an interesting and living process rather than a test of knowledge. The child develops an inner motivation to continue thinking independently.
If an adult discusses different points of view without imposing a single “correct” position
The child is developing morally. The child begins to understand that actions and judgements have reasons behind them, and that these reasons can be discussed, compared, and reflected upon rather than simply accepted as external rules.
If an adult returns the conversation to causes and consequences (“If that is true, what happens next?”, “Does this always work?”)
The child is developing theoretical thinking. The child moves beyond the immediate situation, begins to generalise, notices connections and patterns, and learns to hold the logical structure of reasoning in mind.
If an adult asks the child to justify statements, compare arguments, and examine reasoning
The child is developing the ability to think critically about information. The child develops the habit of checking what a statement is based on and distinguishing between facts, opinions, and weak arguments.
If an adult rephrases the child’s words, clarifies them, and returns the child’s own thought back to them
The child is developing a reflection. The child begins to notice how they think, becomes aware of the course of their reasoning, recognises contradictions, and refines their own position.
Tick the things you notice in the child’s speech and behaviour (“sometimes” already matters):
Dialogue with a child is, first of all, the ability to ask questions that encourage reflection. Secondly, it is the ability to respond in ways that keep thinking going. Adults often rush to explain or provide a ready-made answer, but then the conversation quickly comes to an end. In a developmental dialogue, a response can itself take the form of a question – not in order to test or confuse the child, but to help them reflect on their own thought. Questions such as “Why do you think that?”, “What do you mean by that?”, or “Does that always happen?” do not correct the child, but turn their response into something that can be reflected upon. This is precisely the power of dialogue: it helps the child not simply to speak, but to learn how to reason, clarify, and revise their point of view.
Dialogue can be compared to a game of table tennis, where the person responding has to listen very carefully in order to continue the shared process of thinking together.
Reasoning is not appropriate in every situation. If a child is very upset, angry, or frightened, a discussion about reasons and arguments will only increase the tension. In such moments, the child needs not questions, but shared feelings: to be listened to, comforted, and emotionally accompanied. Conversation and reflection can happen later, once the emotional intensity has decreased.
Developmental dialogue is impossible from an “examining” position. It emerges when the adult and the child explore a question together, without knowing the answer in advance. A child’s curiosity is often contagious from the adult: if the adult is capable of wonder, doubt, and genuine fascination with a problem, the child willingly joins the process of reasoning. The important thing is not to “lead the child to the correct conclusion”, but to become a partner in shared reflection.
Dialogue requires attention to another person’s thought. This means listening not in order to speak as quickly as possible oneself, but in order to understand how the other person is thinking. When an adult shows genuine interest in a child’s reasoning, asks clarifying questions, returns to the child’s words, and helps develop them further, the child learns to treat thinking – both their own and that of others – as something valuable.
Questions for Clarification and Understanding
Why are they important?
They help the child name something they already know or can notice independently. These questions do not require reasoning – they relate to attention and orientation within a situation.
What does this look like?
If the child finds it difficult, the adult can suggest where to look for the answer:
These questions help the child feel confident and included, although they do not develop reasoning – and that is perfectly normal, because they serve a different function.
Questions About Cause-and-Effect Relationships
Why are they important?
They help children notice hidden connections between events and phenomena.
What does this look like?
Here the child begins to think not about a fact itself, but about its cause.
Questions that Encourage Children to Justify Their Own Position
Why are they important?
They help the child explain the course of their own thinking rather than simply describe how the world works. This is not “Why is the world like this?” but “Why did you think that?”
What does this look like?
These are precisely the kinds of questions that transform conversation into reasoning rather than a simple exchange of opinions.
Questions About One’s Position in Relation to Another Person’s Viewpoint
Why are they important?
They help children learn to agree or disagree consciously rather than automatically.
What does this look like?
It is important that the adult does not signal which answer is “correct”, otherwise the child will orient themselves not towards their own arguments, but towards the adult’s expectations.
These questions are especially important in communication with other children.
Questions that Encourage Inventing and Imagining
Why are they important?
They help children notice non-obvious possibilities in objects and situations.
What does this look like?
Here the child learns to move beyond the familiar.
Questions About What the Child Would Like to Know
Why are they important?
They help children formulate their own questions and identify their interests.
What does this look like?
Such questions show the child that their curiosity matters.
Hypotheses (Questions-Framed-as-Possibilities)
Why are they important?
They help children learn to make predictions and think about how these predictions could be tested.
A hypothesis is a question formulated as a possible statement that may or may not turn out to be true.
What does this look like?
It is important that the adult does not provide a ready-made answer, but instead helps children:
This is the foundation of inquiry-based thinking.
Not every question develops reasoning – and that is perfectly normal. What matters is that conversations with children include different kinds of questions, including those that help children justify their thoughts, consider other points of view, and generate hypotheses.
To support the development of argumentation, there is no need to “teach logic” formally. It is enough to regularly use different kinds of questions that stimulate the child’s thinking.
These help the child explain why they think something, rather than simply expressing an opinion.
Examples:
These help the child notice connections between events and situations.
Examples:
These open up space for alternatives, hypotheses, and imagination – an important part of argumentation.
Examples:
These questions do not need to be asked one after another or all in the same conversation.
It is enough for them to appear naturally throughout the day – during play, reading, or everyday situations.
If, during the course of a day, a child:
then reasoning is already developing.
If a child’s arguments are weak or strange, should they be corrected?Not immediately. It is important first to listen and clarify:
Correction without discussion closes down thinking, whereas clarification helps develop it.
My child argues with me a lot – is that normal?
Yes. Argument is not only conflict; it is also a form of thinking.
In disagreements, children learn to formulate their position, search for arguments, and take another person’s perspective into account.
The important thing is not to suppress disagreement, but to turn it into dialogue:
My child says, “Because I want to!” – is that really an argument?
At this stage, it is not yet an argument, but an expression of desire. However, it is already a step towards argumentation.
The adult’s role is to help the child move further:
Should I explain to my child how to “reason properly”?
No. Preschool children do not develop argumentation through explanations or formal schemes.
Argumentation develops through living dialogue – in play, reading, and everyday situations.
What if my child does not answer questions?
That is perfectly normal. The question may be difficult, or the child may simply need time.
That is why it is important to:
Should I always ask questions?
No. If the child is tired, upset, or disengaged, it is better simply to be present rather than begin a discussion.
Dialogue works only when it is appropriate.
