Given below are some characteristics of a logical argument. Select the one…

Concept — what separates the two families of argument

An argument is a set of premises put forward in support of a conclusion. Every argument, of whatever kind, asserts that support; what divides arguments into families is the STRENGTH of the support asserted. A deductive argument claims necessity: if its premises are true the conclusion cannot be false, because the conclusion only unpacks what the premises already contain. An inductive argument claims probability: its conclusion reaches beyond the information in the premises, so even true premises leave room for the conclusion to fail, and fresh evidence can weaken it.

Two consequences follow. First, an inductive conclusion is never settled beyond revision — the support is a matter of degree, never of certainty. Second, induction draws its material from the world: recorded observations, controlled experiments, enumerated instances, and connections between events.

Application — testing each characteristic against induction

• "The conclusion is claimed to follow from its premises" — this asserts only that support is being offered, with no degree attached. It is the defining mark of an argument as such, so it is present in inductive reasoning as well as in every other kind.

• "The conclusion is based on causal relation" — inferring a producing condition from an observed connection between events is a classical inductive pattern; Mill’s methods of agreement, difference and concomitant variation are its standard formulations.

• "The conclusion is based on observation and experiment" — grounding a general claim in particular recorded cases is the empirical core of induction; the inference runs from the examined instances to the unexamined ones.

• "The conclusion conclusively follows from its premises" — conclusiveness means the premises settle the matter, leaving no possibility of a true-premise/false-conclusion combination. That is deductive validity, and induction never supplies it: an inductive conclusion is at best highly probable.

Cross-check — the monotonicity test

Add a new true premise to a conclusively valid argument and the conclusion stays established; its support is fixed by form alone. Add a new true premise to an inductive argument and the conclusion can be strengthened or overturned — one black swan defeats "all swans are white". Only the characteristic that speaks of conclusive support survives this test, and it survives precisely because it is not inductive.

Hence the characteristic that is not inductive in character is: "The conclusion conclusively follows from its premises."