text: **Ampliative**
  
  Ampliative arguments are arguments whose conclusions contain additional information not found in their 
  premises. In this regard, they are more interesting since they contain information on the depth level and 
  the thinker may learn something genuinely new. But this feature comes with a certain cost: the premises 
  support the conclusion in the sense that they make its truth more likely but they do not ensure its truth.[74] 
  This means that the conclusion of an ampliative argument may be false even though all its premises are 
  true. This characteristic is closely related to*non-monotonicity*and*defeasibility*: it may be necessary to 
  retract an earlier conclusion upon receiving new information or in light of new inferences drawn.[75] 
  Ampliative reasoning plays a central role in many arguments found in everyday discourse and the 
  sciences. Ampliative arguments are not automatically incorrect. Instead, they just follow different 
  standards of correctness. The support they provide for their conclusion usually comes in degrees. This 
  means that strong ampliative arguments make their conclusion very likely while weak ones are less 
  certain. As a consequence, the line between correct and incorrect arguments is blurry in some cases, such 
  as when the premises offer weak but non-negligible support. This contrasts with deductive arguments, 
  which are either valid or invalid with nothing in-between.[76] 