Final answer:
Amy's situation constitutes an inductive argument, as it suggests that she is probably an accountant based on the information given about her company's employees, without guaranteeing the conclusion's truth.
Step-by-step explanation:
The scenario presented in which Amy works for a firm where some employees are accountants and the conclusion that Amy is probably an accountant results in an inductive argument. An inductive argument's strength lies in the conclusion being probably true based on the premises, but it does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion if the premises are true, unlike a deductive argument. Furthermore, an abductive argument is about picking the best explanation for the given set of data, and an analogical argument draws a conclusion based on a comparison between two similar cases. However, the given statement doesn't provide a comparison or a 'best explanation' scenario, and it is also not deducing a necessarily true conclusion from its premises, so it must be an inductive argument.
To test for a valid deductive inference, check if the conclusion must be true given that the premises are true. This can be done by using various logical forms like disjunctive syllogism. An important distinction to note is between truth and logical validity, as a valid deductive argument may have false premises or a false conclusion, but if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false.