Brooks says of Inductive Reasoning: "The relation of induction to deduction will be clearly seen. Induction and Deduction are the converse, the opposites of each other. Deduction derives a particular truth from a general truth; Induction derives a general truth from particular truths. This antithesis appears in every particular. Deduction goes from generals to particulars; Induction goes from particulars to generals. Deduction is an analytic process; Induction is a synthetic process. Deduction is a descending process--it goes from the higher truth to the lower truth; Induction is an ascending process--it goes from the lower truth to the higher. They differ also in that Deduction may be applied to necessary truths, while Induction is mainly restricted to contingent truths." Hyslop says: "There have been several ways of defining this process. It has been usual to contrast it with Deduction. Now, deduction is often said to be reasoning from general to particular truths, from the containing to the contained truth, or from cause to effect. Induction, therefore, by contrast is defined as reasoning from the particular to the general, from the contained to the containing, or from effect to cause. Sometimes induction is said to be reasoning from the known to the unknown. This would make deduction, by contrast, reasoning from the unknown to the known, which is absurd. The former ways of representing it are much the better. But there is still a better way of comparing them. Deduction _is reasoning in which the conclusion is contained in the premises_. This is a ground for its certitude and we commit a fallacy whenever we go beyond the premises as shown by the laws of the distribution of terms. In contrast with this, then, we may call inductive reasoning _the process by which we go beyond the premises in the conclusion_.... The process here is to start from given facts and to infer some other probable facts more general or connected with them. In this we see the process of going beyond the premises. There are, of course, certain conditions which regulate the legitimacy of the procedure, just as there are conditions determining deduction. They are _that the conclusion shall represent the same general kind as the premises_, with a possibility of accidental differences. But it goes beyond the premises in so far as _known_ facts are concerned." The following example may give you a clearer idea of the processes of Inductive Reasoning: _First Step._ Preliminary Observation. _Example_: We notice that all the particular _magnets_ which have come under our observation _attract iron_. Our mental record of the phenomena may be stated as: "A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc., and also X, Y, and Z, all of which are _magnets_, in all observed instances, and at all observed times, _attract iron_."