Empirical arguments rely on examples without necessarily addressing all cases. Students should be skeptical of empirical evidence and should seek more secure arguments for generalizations, such as those that explain why a generalization is true for all cases. Generalizing on the basis of patterns in data is an important mathematical practice; however, overgeneralizing can occur when students focus solely on patterns in their data results. Students should also determine whether patterns are expressed in the processes used to construct data (Harel 2001). In this way, students can link patterns in their processes to patterns in their results and perhaps explain why patterns hold for all cases. We should not discourage students from making such conjectures. However, we should encourage skepticism. In this article, we offer activities that encourage skepticism and a way to contrast empirical arguments that are not viable with empirical arguments that are viable, even when students lack sufficient deductive-reasoning skills. The data presented in this article are from a teaching experiment with a class in which more than 60 percent of students scored below proficient on their 2015 Grade 7 Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium end-of-year assessments (SBAC 2012). A bibliography is included.