text: The terminology used to categorize ampliative arguments is inconsistent. Some authors, like James 
  Hawthorne, use the term "induction" to cover all forms of non-deductive arguments.[77] But in a more 
  narrow sense,*induction*is only one type of ampliative argument alongside*abductive arguments*.[78] 
  Some philosophers, like Leo Groarke, also allow*conductive arguments*[b] as another type.[79] In this 
  narrow sense, induction is often defined as a form of statistical generalization.[80] In this case, the 
  premises of an inductive argument are many individual observations that all show a certain pattern. The 
  conclusion then is a general law that this pattern always obtains.[81] In this sense, one may infer that "all 
  elephants are gray" based on one's past observations of the color of elephants.[78] A closely related form 
  of inductive inference has as its conclusion not a general law but one more specific instance, as when it is 
  inferred that an elephant one has not seen yet is also gray.[81] Some theorists, like Igor Douven, stipulate 
  that inductive inferences rest only on statistical considerations. This way, they can be distinguished from 
  abductive inference.[78] 