Final answer:
Inductive reasoning incorrectly assumes starting from a specific premise to form a generalization, but it actually goes from specific observations to broad generalizations. In contrast, deductive reasoning works from general statements to specific conclusions, guaranteeing the truth of the conclusion if the premises are true.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that inductive reasoning allows us to start with a specific premise and form a generalization is false. Instead, inductive reasoning moves from specific instances to broader generalizations. For example, based on the observation of certain fruits growing on trees, one might erroneously conclude that all fruits grow on trees.
Despite the logical process, this generalization can be disproved by examples such as strawberries and blueberries, which do not grow on trees. Scientists often use inductive reasoning to create theories from observed data, indicating that while inductive reasoning can be powerful, it does not guarantee the truth of its conclusions because it extrapolates beyond the given evidence.
Deductive reasoning, on the other hand, begins with a general statement or hypothesis and reaches a specific conclusion based on logical progression from the generalization. If the premises are true, the conclusion in a deductive argument is guaranteed to be true, which is not the case with inductive reasoning, where conclusions are probable but not certain. Thus, while both forms of reasoning are essential in logic and scientific inquiry, they operate in opposite directions concerning the specificity of their statements.