>
When I use reasoning to find an answer to a problem, my goal is to find the answer. The answer cannot exist without the reasoning, true, but if I have reasoning and no answer I didn't achieve what I set out to do because it is impossible to present my answer. I see no reason to deem one more or less important than the other, and I can only assume that there is no difference in the importance of their existence in the process.
<

You are mixing a lot of concepts together. The fact that you say above that an answer cannot exist without reasoning, you must come to the conclusion that reasoning is more important. The fact that you may not be able to arrive at an answer does not necessarily undermine the credibility of your analysis and reasoning. It may very well be that your analysis is incomplete. Sometimes, the achievment rests with understanding the problem. Often, I have had a conclusion in mind, one that I was ready to go with, only to come to an opposite conclusion once I analyzed the problem in further detail.