I've been reading a bit about cognitive styles lately and formal logic, which this test measures was equated with causal-deterministic thinking:

Causal-Determinist cognition is known under synonymous names as formal logic or deterministic thinking, both of which emphasize its rigid nature. Speech in this cognitive style takes shape with aid of the connectives "because", "therefore", "consequently" (causal conjunctions). The mental process consists in constructing chains of cause and effect, reducing explanations to deterministic mechanisms.
I will touch its advantages. First, it is perceived by society as the most authoritative, most convincing, and singularly correct. In mathematics, it is formalized as the deductive-axiomatic method. Use of it requires great intellectual stamina. Second, attributes of greater clarity and concentration are inherent to this style. The type most characterized by singular concentration is LSI. However, the irrational SEE argues quite soundly, deriving one consequence from another, implying focus on the chain of events.
So, someone who argues quite soundly, and is good at formal logic can easily be Ti polr (SEE), and a person can be Ti lead (LII) and not think in this fashion. Anyone of any type of course could study and learn formal logic, I just mean as a natural mode of thinking.

I think the difference between CD with Ti-polr and Ti itself is in the ability to make connections beyond direct cause and effect, things like comparisons between two things, and how things can be related and classified, categorized and sorted in ways besides one leading to the next, it's an entire framework rather than simple links. It's literally a difference in dimensionality because you give them both the same information and the Ti-lead will fill in all the gaps themselves, they don't need as much information to draw conclusions. One sees a chain, and the other an entire web of connections. (A holographic Ti polr type works in a different way, but also doesn't see the connections) As far as polr goes I think you just don't know what you're missing. In practice this might look like irritation at someone leaving out too much information which appears as a logical leap to the CD Ti-polr, but I think an intelligent SEE could mistype as a logical type if they heavily identify with this thinking style.