Question

This form of argument is an inductive form that reasons from the general to the specific.

Answer 1

Inductive reasoning is a logical process that starts from specific observations and moves towards general conclusions, commonly utilized in the scientific method. Unlike deductive reasoning, which moves from general to specific, inductive reasoning goes from the specific to the general and may result in conclusions that are not always accurate.

Step-by-step explanation:

The student is asking about a form of argument called inductive reasoning, which is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion. Inductive reasoning is often used in hypothesis-based science, where scientists observe particular instances and construct broad generalizations based on these observations. Unlike deductive reasoning, which starts with a general statement and moves towards a specific conclusion, inductive reasoning works the other way by starting from specific observations to reach a general conclusion.

For instance, noticing that apples, bananas, and oranges all grow on trees might lead one to generalize that all fruits grow on trees. This is inductive reasoning; however, this conclusion may be false, evident by the existence of fruits like strawberries that do not grow on trees. Scientific method involves both inductive and deductive reasoning, where theories formulated through inductive reasoning generate hypotheses that are subsequently tested with deductive reasoning.

Answer 2

Answer;

Statistical syllogism

Explanation;

An inductive argument is an argument in which it is thought that the premises provide reasons supporting the probable truth of the conclusion. In an inductive argument, the premises are intended only to be so strong that, if they are true, then it is unlikely that the conclusion is false.

The Statistical syllogism or proportional syllogism or direct presumption is a non-deductive syllogism. It argues from a sweeping statement true for the most part to a particular case in opposite to induction, which argue from specific cases to generalizations.