Which is true of causal generalizations?They are not explanations.They are deductive arguments.They are exhaustive explanations.They are parts of explanations.

To determine which statement is true regarding causal generalizations, let's analyze each option:

1. They are not explanations. - Causal generalizations can indeed serve as explanations by highlighting how one event (the cause) leads to another event (the effect). Therefore, this statement is misleading.

2. They are deductive arguments. - Causal generalizations are typically inductive rather than deductive. They draw general conclusions from specific instances but do not fit the structure of deductive arguments. Hence, this statement is not true.

3. They are exhaustive explanations. - This statement suggests that causal generalizations account for all aspects of a phenomenon, which is usually not the case. Causal generalizations can often explain a cause-effect relationship but do not necessarily capture every possible explanation.

4. They are parts of explanations. - This statement is accurate. Causal generalizations can form a part of a broader explanation by linking causes to effects, thus contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of phenomena.

In conclusion, the correct answer is that causal generalizations are parts of explanations.