Deductive reasoning is reasoning which uses deductive arguments to m= ove from given statements (premises), which are assumed to be true, to conclusi= ons, which must be true if the premises are true

Deductive reasoning is reasoni= ng which uses deductive arguments to move from given statements (premise= s), which are assumed to be true, to conclus= ions, which must be true if the premises are true.

Deducti= ve reasoning applies general principles to reach specific conclusions, whereas inductive reasoning examines specific information, perhaps many pie= ces of specific information, to impute a general principle.

Deductive reasoning is often contr= asted with inductive reasoning, which reasons from a l= arge number of particular examples to a general rule.

Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoni= ng in which the premises of an argumen= t are believed to support the conclusion but do not entail<= /span> it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth. Induction is a form of reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual instances. It is used to ascribe = propert= ies or relations to types based on an observation instance (i.e., on a number = of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenome= nal patterns.

Alternative to deductive reasoning is inductive reasoning. The basic difference between the two can be summarized in the deductive dynamic of logically progressing from general evidence to a particular truth or conclusion; wher= eas with induction the logical dynamic is precisely the reverse. Inductive reasoning starts with a particular observation that is believed to be a demonstrative model for a truth or principle that is assumed to apply generally.

Many people distinguish between two basic kinds of arg= ument: inductive and deductive. Induction is usually described as mo= ving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general a= nd ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation are be= st expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively.

In logic, we often refer to the two broad methods of reasoning as the deductive and inductive approaches.

Deductive reasoning works from the more general to the= more specific. Sometimes this is informally called a "top-down" approa= ch. We might begin with thinking up a theory about our topic of interest. We then narrow that down into more specific hypotheses that we can test. We narrow down even further when we collect observations to addr= ess the hypotheses. This ultimately leads us to be able to test the hypotheses = with specific data -- a con= firmation (or not) of our original theories.

Inductive reasoning works the other way, moving from specific observations to broader generalizations and theories. Informally, = we sometimes call this a "bottom up" approach (please note that it's "bottom up" and not "bottoms up" which is the kind of thing the bartender says to customers when he= 's trying to close for the night!). In inductive reasoning, we begin with spec= ific observations and measures, begin to detect patterns and regularities, formu= late some tentative hypotheses that we can explore, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories.