IM – 11 | 1
Chapter 11
Inductive Reasoning
Chapter Recap
• An argument from an analogy is an argument that something has an attribute because a
similar thing has that attribute.
• Thinking critically about arguments from analogy involves the principles stated on page
343.
• The time-honored strategy for rebutting an argument from analogy is to “attack the
analogy” by calling attention to important dissimilarities between the premise-analogue
and the conclusion-analogue.
• Scientific generalizing from samples differs from the everyday variety in that everyday
samples are not scientifically selected to eliminate bias, and probabilities in everyday
generalizations cannot be calculated precisely.
• Statistical syllogisms have this form: Most Xs are Ys; this is an X; therefore this is a Y.
• The strength of a statistical syllogism is distinct from the probability of its conclusion
everything considered.
• Arguments and causal statements often use the same vocabulary.
• Causal statements can be conclusions or premises in arguments, but not entire arguments.
• A causal hypothesis is a tentative causal statement offered for further investigation or
testing.