Sovi.AI - AI Math Tutor

Scan to solve math questions

QUESTION IMAGE

ordering the chaos of the contemporary world: an introduction to freako…

Question

ordering the chaos of the contemporary world: an introduction to freakonomics
pre-test complete
1 2 3 4 5
read the following excerpt from levitt and dubner’s freakonomics.
the bagel data also reflect how much personal mood seems to affect honesty. weather, for instance, is a major factor. unseasonably pleasant weather inspires people to pay at a higher rate. unseasonably cold weather, meanwhile, makes people cheat prolifically; so do heavy rain and wind. worst are the holidays. the week of christmas produces a 2 percent drop in payment rates—again, a 15 percent increase in theft, an effect on the same magnitude, in reverse, as that of 9/11. thanksgiving is nearly as bad; the week of valentine’s day is also lousy, as is the week straddling april 15. there are, however, a few good holidays: the weeks that include the fourth of july, labor day, and columbus day. the difference in the two sets of holidays? the low - cheating holidays represent little more than an extra day off from work. the high - cheating holidays are fraught with miscellaneous anxieties and the high expectations of loved ones.
the excerpt is an example of inductive reasoning because the authors.
work from a generalization to formulate specific examples.
arrive at a generalization after starting with another generalization.
formulate a generalization by studying specific examples.
arrive at specific examples by studying other examples.

Explanation:

Brief Explanations

To determine the correct option, we analyze inductive reasoning: it involves deriving a general conclusion from specific instances. The excerpt uses specific examples (weather, different holidays and their effects on honesty) to formulate a generalization about how personal mood (influenced by these factors) affects honesty.

  • Option 1: Inductive doesn't go from generalization to specific examples (that's deductive). Eliminate.
  • Option 2: Inductive starts with specific examples, not another generalization. Eliminate.
  • Option 3: Matches inductive reasoning (specific examples → generalization).
  • Option 4: Doesn't describe inductive; it's about deriving examples from other examples, not a generalization. Eliminate.

Answer:

C. formulate a generalization by studying specific examples.