Another form of logical analysis is known as inductive reasoning (compare with argument by analogy, infra). Unlike deductive reasoning which derives its conclusion by reasoning from the major (i.e., general) premise to the minor (i.e., particular) premise, inductive reasoning reaches its conclusion in just the opposite manner. Inductive reasoning works by asserting a series of minor (i.e., particular) premises to support the conclusion, a major (i.e., general or universal) premise. As with deductive reasoning, legal conclusions reached by inductive reasoning are not absolute. At best they may only be used to establish more likely than not the truth of the fact(s) of the stated conclusion.

     To see how inductive reasoning compares with deductive reasoning, consider the following example:

(1) A's oral conveyance of land in Case A is invalid. (a minor premise)
(2) B's oral conveyance of land in Case B is invalid. (a minor premise)
(3) C's oral conveyance of land in Case C is invalid. (a minor premise)
*
*
*
(26) Z's oral conveyance of land in Case Z is invalid. (a minor premise) CONCLUSION: Therefore, ALL oral conveyances of land are invalid. (a major, universal premise).

     The analytical basis for this general conclusion is that since twenty-six factually similar (i.e., particular) instances of oral conveyances of land have all been invalid, a general conclusion may be made that all future such conveyances will also be invalid. Hence, inductive reasoning allows the broad conclusion (a major, universal premise statement) to be inferred that "ALL oral conveyances of land are invalid."

     Of course, such generalized conclusions are only as good as the particular information from which they are derived. Certainly, at least from a statistical point of view, the greater the number of individual instances that are examined before a general conclusion is reached, the more reliable the ultimate conclusion. However, within the context of legal analysis, absolute certainty is almost never attained through inductive reasoning.

     For example, what if in the preceding example a twenty-seventh case, Case AA, was discovered in which an oral conveyance of land was found by the court to be VALID? be modified in some manner: "Almost all oral conveyances of land are invalid" or "All oral conveyance of land are invalid, except in Case AA."

     Inductive reasoning underlies much of the common law system of case analysis. Lawyers and judges (and law students) analyze numerous individual cases, and then they attempt to derive broad, generalized statements (or rules) of law that explain those cases.

     One of the greatest dangers inherent in relying upon argument by inductive reasoning is the tendency to reach a general conclusion too quickly. Often referred to as "jumping to a conclusion," this hazard is particularly common among beginning law students. Consider the following conclusion derived through the process of inductive reasoning:

(1) In Case A, the court held that an oral conveyance of land was invalid. (a minor premise).

(2) In Case B, the court held that an oral conveyance of personalty was invalid. (a minor premise).

Conclusion: Therefore, ALL oral conveyances are invalid. (a major premise).

     After reading a few more cases involving oral conveyances of both real and personal property, the student would likely discover that not all oral conveyances of personalty are invalid, although most (if not all) conveyances of land are invalid. The conclusion to which this student "jumped" was much too broad. It was not supported by the case law. Had the student been less hasty in reaching this conclusion, and taken time to examine more cases that addressed the question of oral conveyances of all types of property, this mistaken conclusion would not have occurred. However, the problem in this example is not with the inductive reasoning that was used; it is with the limited number of cases that were examined.