This is usually understood as implying that the argument was grounded on statements (I) and (II), and had (IV), which is the contradictory of (III), as conclusion; and this is about as far as the passages lead us.
Assuming that grounding is unitary (we can remain neutral on how grounding might be related to metaphysical relations like material constitution and realization), what is the logical form of grounding statements?
We begin by addressing five foundational issues about grounding: (i) whether grounding is unitary, (ii) whether we can analyze the concept of grounding, (iii) the logical form of grounding statements, (iv) how grounding is related to explanation, and (v) how it's related to necessity.
For the purposes of this entry we will assume that grounding is a relation between facts, that the logical form of grounding statements is $[p]$ is grounded in Δ, and that $[p]$ is grounded in Δ only if $[p]$ and the Δs obtain (i.e., the grounding relation is factive).
It seems that there are cases in which a single fact is grounded in a plurality of facts (e.g., $[p \mathbin q]$ (the fact that $p \mathbin q$) is grounded in $[p], [q]$), so we can think of the logical form of grounding statements on the predicate view as follows: $[p]$ is grounded in Δ, where Δ is a plurality of facts.
Experimental predictions regarding urban/non-urban behavioral differences are grounded in disparate statements regarding the ecological conditions that prevail in urban environments.
Relational statements, grounded in the data, were connected using memos created during data analysis.
Through a method of constant comparison, a key element of grounded theory, the statements made during the interviews at two different times can be compared with one another, and be related to one another.
It is important to state that due to several limitations of this case series, no well-grounded statements can be made on the effectiveness of the treatment.
Therefore, according to the purpose of grounded theory, this statement can be suggested first: High level of fashion sensitivity of North Korean female defector is related to Assimilation behaviors in clothing acculturation.
Imagine a first study and concurrent seminars at host institutions, such as universities and think tanks, that offers a clear comprehensive statement, grounded honestly in classical Jewish sources, about what Judaism has to say on issues such as terrorism, the income gap, immigration, urbanization, trade, and public private partnerships.
