The various inductive argument forms are mutually exclusive. A general statement makes a claim about every object in a set. To draw a conclusion from eyewitness testimony is to make an argument from authority. It is not always possible to determine whether an argument is deductive or inductive. If everyone agrees with a conclusion of an argument, then the argument is deductive. A syllogism must have one premise and two conclusions. Because a witness in a court case must take an oath before offering testimony, this example of argument from authority is deductive. Inductive arguments make use of necessary reasoning. A generalization always involves a sample of members from a larger group. In an inductive argument, the conclusion does not have to follow by strict necessity. Sometimes deductive indicators are inappropriately used by an arguer to make his or her conclusion seem to follow more strongly than it really does. A generalization applies a general principle to a specific instance. The Aristotelian view of induction is that it proceeds from the particular to the general. Pure mathematics is an example of inductive reasoning. A generalization is an inductive argument form.