Practice worksheet for distinguishing between inductive and deductive reasoning with five examples.

Let’s go through each argument one by one to figure out if it’s inductive or deductive.

---

What’s the difference?

- Deductive reasoning: Starts with a general rule and applies it to a specific case. If the rules are true, the conclusion *must* be true. Like math: 2 + 2 = 4 → so 2+2+2=6.

- Inductive reasoning: Looks at specific examples and tries to make a general rule from them. The conclusion is likely, but not guaranteed. Like: “I saw 3 black cats — maybe all cats are black?” (Not necessarily true!)

---

Now let’s look at each question:

---

1.
> 1 is an odd number.
> 11 is an odd number.
> 21 is an odd number.
> Therefore, all numbers ending with 1 are odd numbers.

→ This starts with specific examples (1, 11, 21) and makes a general rule (“all numbers ending in 1”). That’s classic inductive reasoning. Even though the conclusion happens to be true, the *method* is induction.

✔ Answer: Inductive

---

2.
> Dogs don’t eat banana.
> Sam is a dog.
> Therefore, Sam does not eat banana.

→ This starts with a general rule (“dogs don’t eat banana”) and applies it to a specific case (“Sam is a dog”). So if the rule is true, Sam must not eat bananas. That’s deductive.

✔ Answer: Deductive

---

3.
> Andre did not win the game 2 days ago.
> Andre did not win the game yesterday.
> Therefore, Andre will win the game today.

→ Hmm… this is weird. It looks like someone is guessing based on past failures that he’ll win now. But there’s no logical connection — losing before doesn’t mean you’ll win next time. Still, since it’s trying to predict based on patterns (even flawed ones), it’s inductive. Induction can be weak or wrong — it just means going from specific cases to a prediction/generalization.

✔ Answer: Inductive

---

4.
> Hans has not bought any snack.
> His parents have not bought any snack.
> Therefore, there won’t be anything to eat for the picnic.

→ Again, this is making a conclusion based on limited observations. Maybe someone else brought snacks? We don’t know. But they’re looking at two people who didn’t bring snacks and concluding nothing will be eaten. That’s inductive — assuming the pattern continues without proving it.

✔ Answer: Inductive

---

5.
> All birds have feathers.
> Chickens are birds.
> Therefore, chickens have feathers.

→ Classic deductive structure! General rule (“all birds have feathers”), apply to specific case (“chickens are birds”), therefore conclusion follows logically. Must be true if premises are true.

✔ Answer: Deductive

---

Final Answers:

1. Inductive
2. Deductive
3. Inductive
4. Inductive
5. Deductive

──────────────────────────────────────

Final Answer:
1. Inductive
2. Deductive
3. Inductive
4. Inductive
5. Deductive