text: Another characterization identifies informal logic with the study of non-deductive arguments. In this way, 
  it contrasts with deductive reasoning examined by formal logic.[35] Non-deductive arguments make their 
  conclusion probable but do not ensure that it is true. An example is the inductive argument from the 
  empirical observation that "all ravens I have seen so far are black" to the conclusion "all ravens are 
  black".[36] 
  
  A further approach is to define informal logic as the study of informal fallacies.[37] Informal fallacies are 
  incorrect arguments in which errors are present in the content and the context of the argument.[38] A false 
  dilemma, for example, involves an error of content by excluding viable options. This is the case in the 
  fallacy "you are either with us or against us; you are not with us; therefore, you are against us".[39] Some 
  theorists state that formal logic studies the general form of arguments while informal logic studies 
  particular instances of arguments. Another approach is to hold that formal logic only considers the role of 