question 8 of 10
which of the following is an example of inductive reasoning?

a. it snowed on new year’s eve, so it will snow every new year’s eve.

b. it has snowed every day this week, so it will likely snow tomorrow.

c. the meteorologist predicts snow for new year’s eve, so it will
snow new year’s eve.

d. february is a snowy month where i live, so it will probably snow a
lot in february.

Question

question 8 of 10
which of the following is an example of inductive reasoning?

a. it snowed on new year’s eve, so it will snow every new year’s eve.

b. it has snowed every day this week, so it will likely snow tomorrow.

c. the meteorologist predicts snow for new year’s eve, so it will
snow new year’s eve.

d. february is a snowy month where i live, so it will probably snow a
lot in february.

Accepted Answer

# Brief Explanations:
Inductive reasoning involves making generalizations or predictions based on specific observations or patterns.
- Option A: Assumes a universal rule (snow every New Year’s Eve) from one instance, which is overgeneralizing but still inductive? Wait, no—wait, let's re - evaluate. Wait, inductive reasoning uses specific cases to draw probable conclusions.
- Option B: Uses the pattern of snow every day this week (specific observations) to make a probable prediction about tomorrow. This is a classic inductive reasoning as it infers a likely future event from past specific instances.
- Option C: Relies on an expert's prediction (not inductive from personal observations/patterns).
- Option D: Uses a general characteristic of February (a snowy month, which is a general statement) to predict, but it's more of a general - to - specific? No, inductive is specific to general or specific to probable specific. Wait, Option B: specific days (this week) → probable tomorrow. Option A: one instance → universal. Option D: general (February is snowy) → specific (snow a lot in February). But inductive is about inferring from specific examples. So Option B takes specific daily snow this week (multiple specific instances) to predict tomorrow (a probable conclusion), which is inductive. Option A is a hasty generalization (one instance to all), but inductive can be hasty, but Option B is a better example as it has multiple instances. Wait, no—let's recall: Inductive reasoning is reasoning from specific observations to general or probable conclusions. So:

- A: Specific (snowed on one NYE) → general (will snow every NYE) (hasty, but inductive).
- B: Specific (snowed every day this week - multiple specific) → probable (will likely snow tomorrow) (inductive, using pattern of multiple days).
- C: Deductive? No, it's relying on authority, not inductive.
- D: General (February is snowy) → specific (snow a lot in February) —this is more of a deductive - like or just a prediction from a general fact, not from specific observations.

Wait, maybe I made a mistake. Let's re - define inductive reasoning: it's when you use specific examples to make a general rule or a probable conclusion. So:

- A: 1 example → general rule (every NYE).
- B: 7 examples (this week) → probable conclusion (tomorrow).
- D: General statement (February is snowy) → prediction (snow a lot in February) —this is using a general premise to predict, not specific observations.

But which is a better example? Inductive reasoning can be from a few or many specific cases. Option B uses a pattern of multiple days (this week) to predict tomorrow, which is a probable conclusion based on observed pattern. Option A is a single case to a universal, which is a very weak inductive argument, but still inductive. However, in typical examples, inductive reasoning is about inferring from a series of observations. So Option B is a better example. Wait, but let's check the options again.

Wait, the question is "which is an example of inductive reasoning". Let's analyze each:

- A: It snowed on New Year’s Eve (one event) → so it will snow every New Year’s Eve (universal conclusion). This is inductive (specific to general), but a hasty generalization.
- B: It has snowed every day this week (multiple specific events) → so it will likely snow tomorrow (probable conclusion). This is inductive (specific events → probable future event).
- C: The meteorologist predicts snow (authority) → so it will snow (certain conclusion). This is not inductive; it's an argument from authority.
- D: February is a snowy month (general statement) → so it will probably snow a lot in February (prediction from general statement). This is not inductive, as it's using a general fact, not specific observations.

So between A and B. Inductive reasoning can be from a single instance (hasty) or multiple. But in standard examples, inductive is from a pattern of observations. So B is a better example because it has a pattern of multiple days (this week) leading to a probable conclusion. A is a single instance to a universal, which is a very weak inductive argument, but still inductive. However, in most cases, B is considered a better example of inductive reasoning as it's based on a series of observations (this week) to make a probable prediction (tomorrow).

Wait, but maybe the answer is B. Let's confirm with definitions. Inductive reasoning: reasoning that takes specific examples and makes a general rule or a probable conclusion. So:

- B: Specific (snowed every day this week) → probable (will likely snow tomorrow). Yes, that's inductive.
- A: Specific (one NYE) → general (every NYE) —inductive, but weak.
- But which is the correct answer? Let's see, maybe the intended answer is B. Because A is a universal conclusion from one instance, which is a hasty generalization, but B is a probable conclusion from multiple instances. So the answer is B.

# Answer:
B. It has snowed every day this week, so it will likely snow tomorrow.

Sovi.AI - AI Math Tutor

QUESTION IMAGE

Question

Explanation:

Answer: