Question

what confusion exists here:logic and reason do not act in a vacuum—they must be fed experiential observations in order for them to extract patterns. A genius might extract patterns from fewer samples or from samples only analogously related, but no person— no matter how brilliant—can conjure knowledge out of nothing. The unexpected pleasant side-effect of my jargon acquisition experiment was that I amassed accurate, catalogued observations about the circumstances of my typos, which later provided the raw material for my reason to act upon

Accepted Answer

logic and reason above suggested two separate entities, and when reason was used alone below, it suggested that this was distinct and the alternative means of reasons (such as cause) jumped to mind

I fixed by relacing reason with reasoning

Reason Logic Act Observations Extract Samples I Suggested