Using the speech terms listed below, fill in the blanks of the sentences in this exercise. induction
deduction
case study
sign
causality
correlated
circumstantial evidence
begging the question
hasty generalization
false analogy
ignoring the question

1. The federal government has recently declared that it wants to learn more about how states spend their budgets. It is planning to conduct a of Arkansas’s budget plans over the past five years.
2. You study drunk-driving laws in 20 states and conclude that harsher penalties for driving while intoxicated could benefit every state in the nation. This process is an example of reasoning by . However, 20 states might not be a large enough sample to justify changing the laws in all states. The conclusion, if false, might turn out to be a .
3. “My client’s presence at the scene of the crime does not mean that she is guilty,” argued the attorney. “Her presence is merely .”
4. “Ninety-five percent of serial killers have milk in their refrigerators. Therefore, milk has a 95 percent chance of causing one to become a serial killer.” This flawed reasoning is an example of two things that are but that do not have .
5. If a highway patrol officer observes a car weaving from lane to lane and deduces that
the driver of the swerving car may be drunk, he is reasoning by .
6. When you reason from general premises to specific cases, you are using the process of .
7. If the authors of this book asked you, “How do you like this great quiz so far?” they would be .

I need this ASAP!!

Pls don’t answer it if you don’t know the answer