本文主要介绍非形式化推理中的溯因推理和权衡论证以及它们的国内外研究现状，沿用岑克尔(Frank Zenker) 在比较演绎推理、归纳推理、权衡论证中使用的非形式化方式对溯因推理与权衡论证进行比较，通过信息含量和支持动态两个标准说明溯因推理与权衡论证的异同，证明溯因推理和权衡论证可以通过这种比较区分开。并引入最佳解释推理探讨溯因推理与权衡论证的联系，说明了最佳解释推理与溯因推理之间非常密切的联系。提出溯因推理是从旁观者的角度出发，而权衡论证是从论辩者自我的角度出发。当溯因推理加入推理者自我的考量即挑选出最佳解释时就可能包含了权衡论证；当论辩者需要考虑到他人时也可能加入最佳解释推理的模式。文章从日常生活推理的角度出发阐释了两者的交织关系，举例说明不仅是在最佳解释推理中有权衡论证存在，在一些特殊的权衡论证场景下
权衡论证中也包含最佳解释推理。体现了溯因推理与权衡论证之间的不同与联系。

This paper focuses on abductive reasoning and pro and con arguments in non-formal reasoning and the current status of their development and domestic research, comparing abductive reasoning and pro and con arguments along the non-formal approach used by Frank Zenker in comparing deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and pro and con arguments, illustrating the similarities and differences between abductive reasoning and pro and con arguments by two criteria: information content and support dynamics, and demonstrating that abductive reasoning and pro and con arguments can be distinguished from each other. It also introduces the inference to the best explanation to explore the connection between abductive reasoning and pro and con arguments, and illustrates the very close connection between the inference to the best explanation and abductive reasoning. It is proposed that abductive reasoning is from the perspective of the spectator, while pro and con arguments are from the perspective of the arguer’s ego. When abductive reasoning includes the reasoner’s ego’s consideration, i.e., selecting the best explanation, it may include pro and con arguments; when the arguer needs to consider the others, the model of the inference to
best explanation reasoning may also be included. The intertwined relationship between the two is explained from the perspective of everyday reasoning, and examples are given to show that not only in the inference to the best explanation there exists a pro and con argument, but in some special pro and con argument scenarios the pro and con arguments also contains the inference to the
best explanation. It reflects the difference and connection between abductive reasoning and pro and con arguments.