So drawing a conclusion is not the same as drawing an accurate conclusion. Accuracy, as it turns out, is an art form in drawing conclusions. It really is tougher than people want to construe it. You can be accurate with a component analysis of something, identifying all the components, like in a tractor assembly, but you may still be wrong with a contingency analysis to note all the factors that affected the engineering of those parts. The type of analysis, can therefore, lead to two or more correct conclusions that do not match each other. As though that was the only problem involved (which it is not), you must be aware that empiricism has limits, especially in social sciences, but in all sciences. Why is this? We cannot control for a poly-dynamic model where variables cannot even be seen or measured; that is certainly the case, especially in social sciences. Political science always leans toward trying to claim it has a full understanding of the variables involved, but we know that is not possible--as of yet (if you are an optimist). We lay out the factors we are trying to account for. Right away someone points out that we have missed a factor. So we include that and we move forward. We examine both our deductive and inductive reasoning and we gather information, but even after that, we must show that other explanations are less probable and that almost never happens. Drawing conclusions is tough. Now in the past, people would constrain themselves, but today that sense of being sophisticated and therefore, more likely correct, when one restrained their conclusions, is not admired. So it is very difficult to ascertain accuracy, and accuracy is very important.