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.