Final answer:
The statement given is an example of inductive reasoning because it generalizes the humor of the show Brooklyn 99 based on a few episodes. Inductive reasoning is not as reliable as deductive reasoning, which guarantees the truth of the conclusion if the premises are true.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement "I've watched a couple of episodes of Brooklyn 99, and they were pretty funny. Brooklyn 99 is a funny show" is an example of inductive reasoning.
This is because the reasoning moves from a specific observation about a couple of episodes to a general conclusion about the entire show. Inductive reasoning involves making generalizations based on specific instances or observations, which may or may not be correct.
Unlike deductive reasoning, which can guarantee the truth of conclusions if the premises are true, inductive reasoning does not guarantee truth but can still be quite reliable. It is important to note, however, that in this example the inference is a generalization that could potentially be disproven by further evidence, such as watching more episodes that may not be funny.
On the other hand,
deductive reasoning
involves a logical progression where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, provided that those premises are true. For example, if we say 'All tigers are mammals. All mammals are vertebrates. Therefore, tigers are vertebrates,' we are engaging in deductive reasoning, because the conclusion must be true if the premises are true.