Inductive reasoning from varying factual scenarios forms premises for deductive reasoning
Evidence
To analyze different factual scenarios is to engage in inductive reasoning, a reasoning based on probabilities. The conclusion emerging from induction then serves as a premise—major or minor—in the deductive process that follows. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 762
Categorization
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 762
- XREF: connects to: Judicial generalization and analogical reasoning constitute the process of induction — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 676; Inductive reasoning yields probability while deduction yields certainty — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1311; Legal reasoning employs both deductive and inductive processes iteratively. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 312 (+2 more)
Broader Connections
- Legal reasoning employs both deductive and inductive processes iteratively.
#exemplifies(0.80) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 312 - Inductive reasoning yields probability while deduction yields certainty
#expands(0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1311 - Deductive legal analysis applies established characteristic propositions to new cases
#exemplifies(0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 680 - Deductive legal reasoning requires identifying the controlling major premise.
#exemplifies(0.70) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 751