INTRODUCTION

Early proponents of induction, such as Francis Bacon, saw it as a way of understanding

nature in an unbiased way, as it derives laws from neutral observation. In argument, starting
with the detail anchors your persuasion in reality, starting from immediate sensory data of
what can be seen and touched and then going to the big picture of ideas, principles and general
rules.
Starting from the small and building up to the big can be less threatening than starting
with the big stuff.
Scientists create scientific laws by observing a number of phenomena, finding
similarities and deriving a law which explains all things. A good scientific law is highly
generalized and may be applied in many situations to explain other phenomena. For example
the law of gravity was used to predict the movement of the planets. Of course when you find a
law, you have to spend ages proving it and convincing others that it is true.
Inductive arguments are always open to question as, by definition, the conclusion is a
bigger bag than the evidence on which it is based.
In set theory, an inductively created rule is a superset of the members that are taken as
the start point. The only way to prove the rule is to identify all members of the set. This is
often impractical. It may, however, be possible to calculate the probability that the rule is true.
In this way, inductive arguments can be made to be more valid and probable by adding
evidence, although if this evidence is selectively chosen, it may falsely hide contrary evidence.

Inductive reasoning thus needs trust and demonstration of integrity more than deductive
reasoning.
There are two types of inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning begins with a particular
proposition, and ends either:
- Inductive reasoning by generalization
When you cannot rely on universals or settled law to provide a major premise to compel your conclusion,
you need to build your own major premise through inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning by
generalization uses several specific facts to create a theory that explains relationships between those facts
and supports your conclusion. The Judge offers the following example:
Plato was a man and Plato was mortal.
Julius Caeser was a man and Julius Caeser was mortal.
George Washington was a man and George Washington was mortal.
John Marshall was a man and John Marshall was mortal.
Ronald Reagan is a man and Ronald Reagan is mortal.
Therefore, all men are mortal.
To use inductive reasoning successfully, you need to ensure that your supporting facts represent an
appropriate sample size and are representative. With inductive reasoning, you can never be certain that
your conclusion is true, but through your supporting facts, you should be able to establish that your
conclusion is highly probable.
- Inductive reasoning by analogy
Another form of inductive reasoning common in law is analogy, in which you make one-to-one
comparisons and draw similarities between two different things. Rather than reasoning from the general

to the specific (deductive reasoning) or from the specific to the general (generalizations), analogy requires
reasoning from the specific to the specific.
Analogy is a common part of everyday life and legal practice. For instance, I am a lawyer and I find
Lawyerist to be useful to my practice, so I assume other lawyers will find Lawyerist useful to their
practice, as well. The Judge offers the following formula for an analogy:
A has characteristic Y.
B has characteristic Y.
A also has characteristic Z.
Because A and B both have characteristic Y, we conclude that B also shares characteristic Z.
To use analogy in law, the Judge suggests that you (1) establish similarities between two cases; (2)
announce the rule of law embedded in the first case; and (3) apply the rule of law to the second case.
Successful analogy depends on the relevancy of the comparison. It is therefore important to detail the
similarities between the cases and to acknowledge their differences. You must establish that the relevant
similarities outweigh the relevant differences and therefore the outcomes should be the same.

FOOTNOTES
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/types_reasoning/induction.htm
https://lawyerist.com/5826/logic-based-arguments-for-lawyers/