 Bolzano’s favorite way of explaining this concept is by means of two inferences whose corresponding arguments are \(\langle \sigma_1, s_1\rangle\) and \(\langle \sigma_2, s_2\rangle\) such that the following holds: \(s_1\) describes the rising of a thermometer at a certain moment of time at a certain place, and \(s_2\) describes the rising of the temperature at the same place and time. \(\sigma_1\) contains the law that from the rising of temperature the extension of a liquid (in the thermometer) will follow, plus the required antecedent conditions, whereas \(\sigma_2\) contains the (statistically confirmed) proposition that, if a functioning thermometer at a certain time and place rises, then also the temperature there will rise, plus the corresponding antecedent conditions. (Sometimes Bolzano also uses an analogous example with atmospheric pressure and a barometer.) Let us assume that we have constructed the two arguments in such a way both that \(s_1\) is a logical consequence of \(\sigma_1\) and that \(s_2\) is a logical consequence of \(\sigma_2\). Nevertheless, Bolzano argues, there is an essential difference between the two examples insofar as \(\sigma_1\) is the \(_{}\)objective ground for \(s_1\), and \(s_1\) is therefore entailed by \(\sigma_1, _{}\)whereas this is not true for \(\langle \sigma_2, s_2\rangle\) (WL II, 192 f., 340, WL IV, 580 f., Bolzano 1975, 81 f.).