Written Expression

Definition: Inference from premises concerning correlations, concurrence, covariance and other empirically observed connections, to conclusions about cause-and-effect relationships
Comment: Note that not every piece of reasoning about causation meets the terms of this definition. Consult our treatment of the Standard Pattern for Causal Arguments for more details about good causal reasoning.

Definition: A counter-example to an argument (as opposed to one to an argument pattern) constitutes (broadly) a demonstration that the premises of that argument could be true under certain conditions where the conclusion would nevertheless be false.
Comment: This demonstration will usually consist of adding a premise to the argument, that details a particular way in which the original premises could count as true, and under which it is at least not certain that the conclusion is true.

Definition: In the technical sense, which refers to arguments and their structure, the conclusion is a statement which is supposedly given support by a set of other statements (the premises).
Comment: In real life, arguments frequently have several levels of sub- arguments-- that is, the overall conclusion will be supported by its set of premises, but any one of those premises may itself be supported by another set of statements, and so forth. Relative to the statement it supports, a statement is a premise; relative to those which it is supported by, it is a conclusion.