Final answer:
Descriptive reasoning differs from normative reasoning in that it describes facts and occurrences without judgments, focusing on what is or has been observed. Normative reasoning is prescriptive, judging what ought to be based on values, ethics, and societal norms. Cognitive processes or biases do not define the distinction between these two types of reasoning.
Step-by-step explanation:
Descriptive reasoning is different from normative reasoning because descriptive reasoning pertains to what is or what has been observed, it describes the world without making judgments about whether things are good or bad. It involves stating facts, detailing characteristics, and using evidence to explain how things are. Descriptive reasoning is often employed in empirical research where the focus is on data collection and analysis to establish what is currently the case or what has occurred in the past.
In contrast, normative reasoning is prescriptive, involving statements about what ought to be. It expresses values, ethics, and ideals, prescribing how the world should be rather than describing it. Normative statements typically involve judgments and evaluations, often guided by moral principles or societal norms. This form of reasoning is central to ethics, law, and policy making, where decisions are not just based on what is true, but also on what is right or best according to certain criteria or values.
Given these distinctions, options (a) emotions, (b) heuristics, and (c) attribute substitution would not generally account for the difference between descriptive and normative reasoning. These options are concepts associated with cognitive processes or biases that might affect reasoning but do not specifically differentiate between the descriptive and normative types of reasoning.