The process of finding truth 

by making observations; these 

observations may be from 

statistical polling, controlled 

experiments, or relevant 

examples and analogies. 

The process of inferring a 

conclusion by putting forth 

true premises in a valid format.

An argument that follows 

formal patterns of reasoning 

and is aimed at establishing 

the certainty of a conclusion 

through presenting true 

premises in valid form. 

An argument 

structured in a correct 

deductive format; an argument 

structured in such a way that if 

its premises are true, then its 

conclusion must be true.

A valid 

deductive argument whose 

premises are true. 

A deductive 

argument usually consisting 

of two premises and a 

conclusion.

The statement in a syllogism 

that sets forth a general 

principle. (The major premise 

contains the term that is the 

predicate of the conclusion.) 

The statement in a syllogism 

that expresses an instance of 

the principle set out in the 

major premise. (The minor 

premise contains the term 

that is the subject of the 

conclusion.)

In deductive 

reasoning, the inference 

drawn from the major and 

minor premises of a syllogism. 

A statement in which 

members of one class are 

said to be included in another 

class. This statement may be 

used as the major premise of a 

syllogism.

In deductive reasoning, a 

syllogism whose major premise 

asserts that if the condition 

cited in the first part of a 

statement is true, then the 

claim cited in the second part 

of the statement will follow.

A valid conditional/

hypothetical syllogism in 

which the antecedent is 

affirmed.

See conditional syllogism. A 

syllogism in which the major 

premise presents a condition 

(“if A, then B”) or a possibility 

(“either A or B”) that is 

resolved in the minor premise 

so that a valid conclusion 

can follow. The condition 

or possibility is resolved in 

the minor premise in the 

form of affirmation or denial. 

Conditional and disjunctive 

syllogisms (defined on page 

92) are forms of hypothetical 

syllogisms.

A form 

of argument that builds 

and depends on a series of 

conditions being met. 

A hypothetical syllogism in 

which two possibilities are 

given in the major premise 

and one is assumed to be 

necessarily true. In the minor 

premise, one of the possible 

alternatives is negated, and 

the remaining alternative 

is then affirmed in the 

conclusion.

A valid syllogism that seeks 

to logically rule out various 

possibilities until only a single 

possibility remains. 

A syllogism 

with a key part or parts 

implied rather than directly 

stated.

Evidence offered 

to prove a claim. Grounds can 

consist of statistics, examples, 

research, physical evidence, 

logical reasoning, and expert 

opinion.

Classifying

people, places, or things 

solely on common traits while 

ignoring individual differences 

that make these comparisons 

invalid.

The premise of a deductive 

argument that is under 

dispute. This is also often 

called the contentious 

premise.

(often called 

inductive reasoning) 

The process of drawing 

generalizations from known 

facts or research to give 

strength and support to 

conclusions.

(often

called induction) The process 

of finding truth by making 

observations; inferring general 

laws and truths from specific 

instances.

Data collected by polling and 

research studies that can 

be used to make statistical 

generalizations.

Inferences drawn from 

statistical evidence that 

are used to give strength to 

inductive arguments. 

The specific question that a 

researcher seeks to answer 

concerning a given population.

The group about which 

a researcher wishes to 

generalize.

Members of the 

target population who are 

studied by a researcher. 

A quality of 

a research sample in which 

the sample has the same 

significant characteristics in 

the same proportion as the 

target population.

A sample that 

does not reflect a random, 

representative population. 

A biased sample does not 

provide adequate evidence to 

support a conclusion.

A condition 

that allows every member of a 

target population to have an 

equal chance of being chosen 

as part of the sample.

Generalizations based on 

causal factors; that is, they 

state that a particular factor 

is responsible for a specific 

effect. These generalizations 

are used to strengthen 

inductive arguments.

A condition (state of affairs, 

thing, process) that must be 

present if a particular effect 

is present. Equivalently, if the 

necessary condition is absent, 

then the effect cannot occur. 

A condition (state of 

affairs, thing, process) that 

automatically leads to the 

production of another event. 

If the condition is present, 

then the effect will definitely 

occur. The sufficient condition 

creates or causes the effect.

A combination of causes that 

are presumed to lead to a 

specific effect. 

A causal factor that 

immediately precedes the 

effect.

Factors or 

conditions that led up to but 

did not immediately precede 

the effect. 

A theory of causation 

postulating that the cause of 

an effect is found by noting 

that  X is the only factor always 

present when  Y (the problem 

or the good effect) occurs; 

therefore,  X causes  Y . 

A theory of causation 

postulating that the cause of 

an effect is found by noting 

that the only difference 

between the event or effect 

(called Y) happening or not 

happening is whether one 

element—X—is present.