Consider this argument:

I saw him hit the lady with a stone in the head.
The lady will likely die.

For me this is inductive argument.

But I got impression some places define inductive argument such that it must necessarily make general assumption from few specific ones, is that right?

What kind of argument is above then?

  • 1
    "Inductive" is used in two different senses, broad (anything non-deductive) and narrow (generalization from instances), see Are “if smoke then fire” arguments deductive or inductive? Your example seems to be an enthymeme with implicit major premise ("people hit by a stone on the head likely die"). As such, it is deductive, but one would presumably have to give a separate inductive (in the narrow sense) argument to support the major premise.
    – Conifold
    Jan 23, 2020 at 6:24
  • What you're describing is extrapolation: assuming that given outcome can be deduced from a particular context. Induction (properly put) is the creation of a general principle from a series of observations: e.g., I've seen enough people hit in the head with stones of that sort to assume that it is generally fatal. Extrapolation uses the results of an induction to predict the outcome of a particular case. Jan 23, 2020 at 7:48
  • @Conifold, why don't you offer this as a proper answer? I would upvote it, and perhaps comment on ways to improve it.
    – Schiphol
    Jan 23, 2020 at 9:13


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .