Arguing from the logic has the advantage of being objective and impersonal and avoids the trap of emotive language or personal opinion which are not based on facts. Sometimes issues are fudged with conclusions which use modal forms like 'may' or 'could'. This is a defensive structure because it is a weaker form but avoids total condemnation or criticism and is very common in inductive argument. It can be a way of salvaging an argument which has potential. Sometimes changes in the use of definition of a word occur throughout an argument which causes the issues to become fuzzy.
Definitions are thus important as is consistency in their use.
Sometimes a good criticism of a theory or concept can be made by showing that different parties to a project, for example, had a different view of the meaning or interpretation of one of the key issues. Think about different interpretations of government policy, for example. The correct use of the syllogism is from the general to the particular where the premise is true. To criticise an argument, it may be possible to show that the initial premise is based on a sample which is statistically too small to make inferences from or where the sample was not discrete enough to focus on the area investigated - i.e. there are too many other possible variables, and other possible explanations. Examples of these are to come.