Legal inductions represent probabilities rather than absolute truths.

Evidence

Unlike in science, however, in law we do not assert that our conclusion is true; we represent only that it is more probably true than not. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 550

Categorization

• XREF: XREF: Legal reasoning relies on probable inferences rather than absolute scientific truths. — connects to: Inductive legal generalization produces workable probabilities rather than absolute truths. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 339; Legal reasoning yields probability rather than absolute mathematical truths — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 242; Legal outcomes depend on variable choices and value judgments rather than absolutes. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 752 (+10 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 550

Library Connections

• Legal reasoning yields probability rather than absolute mathematical truths #corroborates (0.95) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 242
• Inductive legal generalization produces workable probabilities rather than absolute truths. #corroborates (0.95) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 339

Broader Connections

• Permissible jury inferences require a logical probability connecting basic facts to ultimate facts #qualifies (0.65) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 217
• Legal outcomes depend on variable choices and value judgments rather than absolutes. #expands (0.60) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 752
• Legal analogy argues from particular facts to particular consequences based on similarities #expands (0.60) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 547
• Judicial generalization and analogical reasoning constitute the process of induction #expands (0.55) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 676