Final answer:
Using deductive reasoning, we can conclude that Sheldon eating meat does not necessarily make Sheldon a dog. This logical process highlights the dependability of conclusions based on valid premises. Inductive reasoning differs by generalizing from specific observations to broader statements.
Step-by-step explanation:
The use of deductive reasoning in the scenario provided can lead to the conclusion that 'D. It is not possible to conclude that Sheldon is a dog' is the correct answer. This is because deductive reasoning is based on the structure of arguments leading to a valid conclusion given the premises. In this case, while all dogs eat meat, and Sheldon eats meat, it does not necessarily follow that Sheldon is a dog; Sheldon could be any meat-eating animal or even a human. Deductive reasoning cannot affirm the specific identity of Sheldon beyond the information provided.
As for inductive reasoning, it makes broader generalizations from specific observations. When we say 'A. Every lion you've seen on TV hunts gazelles, therefore all lions hunt gazelles,' we are using inductive reasoning by generalizing from a subset to all members of a group.