Can this be an example of an inductive argument?

Premise 1: Country A rejected idea Z.

Premise 2: Country B rejected idea Z.

Premise 3: Country C rejected idea Z.

Premise 4: Country D rejected idea Z.

Premise 5: Country E rejected idea Z.

Premise 6: Country F rejected idea Z.

Premise 7: Country G rejected idea Z.

Premise 8: Country H rejected idea Z.

Therefore, from premises 1 – 8,

Conclusion: Country I, which is the subject of the present proceedings, is the only country to have accepted idea Z.

  • Country I would not have to accept or reject the idea just because the other countries rejected it. If Country I accepted the idea it would be a counter example for the claim that all countries rejected the idea. Perhaps I did not understand the question. Regardless, welcome to this SE! Nov 23 '18 at 15:36
  • 1
    Thank you! I am asking because I am trying to analyse a Court judgment. The conclusion made by the Court was that Country I is the only country to have accepted the idea, given all of the examples mentioned (i.e. rejections from Country A - H). So is the Court making an inductive argument here? Or is it an example of another type of argument? Nov 23 '18 at 15:40
  • Are Premises 1-8 the only premises? Is nothing else known about the case? (Maybe something like: some country accepted, A-H rejected, so only I accepted?) If those are really the only premises it's hard to see how the conclusion could be justified.
    – Eliran
    Nov 23 '18 at 16:55
  • Courts usually say that several jurisdictions all accept a principle of law, while the results in several others are unknown. It would be unusual for a court to draw a conclusion that an idea had been rejected in the absence of a clear decision saying so. Jan 27 '20 at 5:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.