A single concrete example can prove existence but not more

Evidence

Direct evidence is said to be evidence which if believed proves the existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption; while circumstantial evidence is evidence which, without going directly to prove the existence of a fact, gives rise to a logical inference that such fact does exist. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 231 (#contradicts, via linked claim)

[N]or is it reasonable to conclude, merely because one event, in one instance, precedes another, that therefore the one is the cause, the other the effect. Their conjunction may be arbitrary and casual. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1129 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Direct evidence proves a fact without requiring inference or presumption — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 231; A single observed sequence may be arbitrary coincidence — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1129; Abstract theory is clarified only through concrete applied cases — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 11 (+2 more)

Related

• A single observed sequence may be arbitrary coincidence (similarity 0.83)
• Direct evidence proves a fact without requiring inference or presumption (similarity 0.82)
• Factual propositions cannot be sustained merely by citing negative evidence (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Direct evidence proves a fact without requiring inference or presumption #contradicts (0.80) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 231
• A single observed sequence may be arbitrary coincidence #expands (0.80) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1129