What reasoning process is this?

Question

We examine the email addresses of 500 people. No two individuals from this group of people have identical email addresses. We conclude that for all people, no two people have identical email addresses.

 

A) Reasoning by counterexample

B) Theoretical reasoning

C) Deductive reasoning

D) Inductive reasoning

 

 

I think it is answer A because it gives a hint. The word "conclude". Is this correct?

Answer 1

I know this is an older question, but I'll toss an answer in here, because it really is kind of ambiguous as stated. Briefly, the setup is inductive, because you have a sample from which you are drawing conclusions (abstracting) in order to make a general judgment. This, along with having a probable answer rather than a certain one, is a mark of inductive reasoning.

 

HOWEVER, the concluding claim is made as if the person was (erroneously) employing deductive reasoning. The reason is that the conclusion is presented as a certain, absolute one. It is a mark of deductive reasoning to have certain, absolute answers. The problem is that, in this case, such certainty is an error, and would be rightly identified as a fallacy. Specifically, in a deductive argument, we cannot arrive at a certain answer regarding the whole from an individual or small sample.

 

And so, the problem is set up as one to which inductive reasoning should be applied, but the stated conclusion is what one might conclude by erroneously attempting to apply deductive reasoning.

Answer 2

The answer is inductive reasoning. From a sample of 500 people we draw a (probable) conclusion about all people (bottom-up).

 

Deductive reasoning (top-down) would be to conclude that if, for all people, no two people have identical email addresses, then no two people in a group of 500 have identical email addresses.

Answer 3

From common sense it seems to me that it is deductive reasoning.

 

I do not see any counterexample here.

 

It is not theoretical reasoning here as  there is clear data.

 

There is no cause or inducing factor towards inductive reasoning.

 

Hope additional talent and comment from my fellow wyzant would explain further.