Rationality Reasoning

Rat-geber, m. counselor, adviser manual, guide, -hsus, n. tow hall, rationell, a. rational, reasonable economical. 

The choice based on rational reasons test, which attempts to ascertain the quality of a patient s thinking and whether it is a product of mental illness... 

We support the intelligent choice of medications based on rational reasons, but avoid the position that all medication is bad, serving only as a substitute for adequate staffing. In this context, there is a great deal of trial and error in dosage adjustment, and there is no substitute for close monitoring in conjunction with frequent feedback from nursing staff. 

These guidelines provide the standard methods to conduct stability tests for new drugs. It is not necessary to always follow these guidelines if there is a rational reason not to. 

It is accepted to submit the stability data of the additives in the drug products if there is rational reason. Published toxicological data are acceptable as the attached data if they are reliable. 

It is possible to formulate rational reasons for centering on scientific grounds. Basically, centering should be performed only if there are common offsets in the data or if removing such offsets provides an approximately reasonable model. Centering should make a difference and this difference can manifest itself as follows ... 

I know how we engineers think. We are all about precise calculations and structured information gathering. So let me provide you with ten powerful and rational reasons why you should learn inventive engineering and ultimately become a truly successful inventive engineer. 

Table 10, therefore, shows what the use and performance scores are for each of the 16 industry sectors when they are categorised into high, medium and low risk. The evidence clearly shows that there is a clear correlation between the level of risk and uncertainty to be managed and the use, but not the performance, of tools and techniques. This means that the findings support the argument that there are rational reasons behind the use of tools and techniques, but only partial evidence that regular and heavy tool and technique use always leads to high levels of performance satisfaction. This conclusion is consistent across all of the four functions analysed. 

This is followed by a discussion of how one might explain the overall pattern of tool and technique use across industry sectors in each of the functions. This discussion shows that there appears to be relatively rational reasons based on function and industry specific risk profiles to explain the heavier use of tools and techniques in some industry sectors than others. Finally, a summary is made of the overall findings in relation to the performance of tools and techniques. The evidence shows that managers are broadly satisfied with performance when they use tools and techniques, even though they sometimes lack objective evidence to validate their subjective opinions. 

The general conclusions above are fairly positive in the sense that the managers who use tools and techniques appear to have rational reasons for introducing them, and the pattern of use across functions is broadly explicable in terms of the levels of risk that have to be managed in specific industry sectors. That said a note of caution is in order. The overwhelming evidence in this study is that most firms and their managers do not use tools and techniques very much at all. Furthermore, when they do use them they normally only use the same ones as everyone else and those that are tried and tested. In this sense it would appear that managers are inherently conservative. 

The hardest part in any troubleshooting job always involves the human element. In this case, I had to convince the foreman to try something new. It does very little good to say, "There is now no rational reason for you not to increase the feed gas rate." The trick is to allow the man making the critical decisions to think it is his idea to increase the charge rate. 

It is not possible to put a clear cut boundary between philosophy and engineering, because if philosophy is driven away from the engineering aspects, then engineer cannot make rational reasoning to reach a conclusive result for the benefit... 

Let us now think about some other questions, say, is there any relationship between the sides Rational reasoning dictates after a slight thought that in any triangle summation of any two sides is greater than the third side . Otherwise one cannot obtain a triangle. 

This expression is derived with linguistic, philosophical thinking and rational reasoning without any numerical thoughts. Now the question is what are the meaning, interpretation and relevance of the constant hi order to answer this question, the constant can be left as subject as follows. 

---