Can anyone show the differences between inductive reasoning and the deductive reasoning?

Answer 1

here is an example.

Deductive Reasoning...

We all know "girls cost time and money". So,
GIRLS=TIME X MONEY
Since "time is gold" and we all know "gold is money", TIME=GOLD, GOLD=MONEY,
TIME=MONEY.
Hence, GIRLS=MONEY x MONEY,
or GIRLS=(MONEY)^2.
Also, "money is the root of all evil" so
MONEY=sqrt(EVIL)
hence, GIRLS= ( sqrt(MONEY) )^2
GIRLS=EVIL. So, we can conclude girls are evil.

Inductive reasoning..

My girlfriend is evil. All girls have evil girlfriends. Therefore, all girls are evil.

Answer 2

The last answer was copied from wikipedia.com. So if you want a good example go there and read the full articles because the girl (I'm assuming) copied and pasted from there. So go to wikipedia.com and look there. It is hard for anyone to explain. If you want a real basic way of putting it. In inductive reasoning the conclusion of a statement is much more generalized than the original statement. So in inductive I would say something like, I always put my socks on in the morning so all socks must be put on in the morning. The conclusion is much broader of a generalization than the original premise. I know it may be a weird example. I try. In deductive the conclusion is around the same generality as the premise. So in deductive I could say, all cats have paws, a Russian blue is a cat, so a Russian blue must have paws. The premise and conclusion are somewhere in the same area. I hope I am helping. Well if not look at the Wiki pages and they will help.

Answer 3

In traditional Aristotelian logic, deductive reasoning is inference in which the conclusion is of no greater generality than the premises, as opposed to abductive and inductive reasoning, where the conclusion is of greater generality than the premises. Other theories of logic define deductive reasoning as inference in which the conclusion is just as certain as the premises, as opposed to inductive reasoning, where the conclusion can have less certainty than the premises. In both approaches, the conclusion of a deductive inference is necessitated by the premises: the premises can't be true while the conclusion is false. (In Aristotelian logic, the premises in inductive reasoning can also be related in this way to the conclusion.)


Inductive reasoning is the complement of deductive reasoning. For other article subjects named induction, see Induction (disambiguation).
Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is used, for example, in using specific propositions such as:

This ice is cold.
A billiard ball moves when struck with a cue.
...to infer general propositions such as:

All ice is cold.
There is no ice in the Sun.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Anything struck with a cue moves

Answer 4

Deductive reasoning is concluding about the parts by testing the whole while inductive reasoning is concluding about the whole by testing the parts. In reality both methods are used in different scenarios as the case may be.

Answer 5

Inductive and deductive reasonings are found in general logic. A mathematical description can be found in any math text that demostrates mathematical proof.

Answer 6

inductive is from example to rule.

if you have a bag of marbles and pull out 10 and they are all blac, you can induce that all the marbles in the bag are black.

deductive is from rule to example.
if you know all the marbles in the bag are black, you can deduce that the one your friend pulled out will be black