How does inductive reasoning work

This skill is useful in making predictions and creating generalizations. Your conclusion may not always be true, but it should be reasonable based on the evidence. For example, you notice that customers have bought more of your product during the third quarter of the year for the past three years. Based on that information, you predict that your customers will buy more of your product during the third quarter of the coming year and you increase production to be prepared.

Inductive reasoning is different from deductive reasoning. With deductive reasoning, you start with a generalization or theory and then test it by applying it to specific incidents. Deductive reasoning is using general ideas to reach a specific conclusion. Inductive reasoning uses specific ideas to reach a broad conclusion.

Scientists may use deductive reasoning to test a hypothesis in a lab. Many law enforcement, military, or corporate leaders must be able to use inductive reasoning by taking a quick sweep of a situation and making a vital, time-sensitive decision. Inductive reasoning allows individuals to accurately see the signs of something bigger at play. In practice, inductive reasoning often appears invisible. Inductive reasoning requires several skills. To develop or improve your inductive reasoning, focus on the following skills:.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. This is called inductive logic, according to Utah State University. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory," Wassertheil-Smoller told Live Science. An example of inductive logic is, "The coin I pulled from the bag is a penny.

That coin is a penny. A third coin from the bag is a penny. Therefore, all the coins in the bag are pennies. Even if all of the premises are true in a statement, inductive reasoning allows for the conclusion to be false. Here's an example: "Harold is a grandfather. Therefore, all grandfathers are bald. Inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories.

Deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations. For example, we do not have proof for the existence or non-existence of aliens, although proof does exist somewhere.

The fictional character Sherlock Holmes is a master of induction. He is a careful observer who processes what he sees to reach the most likely conclusion in the given set of circumstances. It is true induction, coming up with the strongest possible explanation for the phenomena he observes.

Consider his description of how, upon first meeting Watson, he reasoned that Watson had just come from Afghanistan:. I knew you came from Afghanistan. From long habit the train of thoughts ran so swiftly through my mind, that I arrived at the conclusion without being conscious of intermediate steps.

There were such steps, however. Clearly an army doctor, then. He has just come from the tropics, for his face is dark, and that is not the natural tint of his skin, for his wrists are fair. He has undergone hardship and sickness, as his haggard face says clearly. His left arm has been injured. He holds it in a stiff and unnatural manner. Where in the tropics could an English army doctor have seen much hardship and got his arm wounded? Clearly in Afghanistan.

I then remarked that you came from Afghanistan, and you were astonished. Inductive reasoning involves drawing conclusions from facts, using logic. We draw these kinds of conclusions all the time. If someone we know to have good literary taste recommends a book, we may assume that means we will enjoy the book. Induction can be strong or weak. If an inductive argument is strong, the truth of the premise would mean the conclusion is likely. If an inductive argument is weak, the logic connecting the premise and conclusion is incorrect.

The entire legal system is designed to be based on sound reasoning, which in turn must be based on evidence. Lawyers often use inductive reasoning to draw a relationship between facts for which they have evidence and a conclusion. The initial facts are often based on generalizations and statistics, with the implication that a conclusion is most likely to be true, even if that is not certain.

For that reason, evidence can rarely be considered certain. Inductive reasoning also involves Bayesian updating. A conclusion can seem to be true at one point until further evidence emerges and a hypothesis must be adjusted. If we imagine a simplified, hypothetical criminal case, we can picture the utility of Bayesian inference combined with inductive reasoning.

One of them is the primary suspect, and there is no evidence of anyone else entering the house. Other evidence will then adjust that probability. Reality is more complex than this, of course.

The conclusion is never certain, only highly probable. One key distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning is that the latter accepts that a conclusion is uncertain and may change in the future. A conclusion is either strong or weak, not right or wrong.

We tend to use this type of reasoning in everyday life, drawing conclusions from experiences and then updating our beliefs. Everyday inductive reasoning is not always correct, but it is often useful. While it provides you with the opportunity to explore, it also limits the foundation available for you to use.

For example, if you observe cats and notice they all hiss at dogs, you may conclude that every cat will hiss at dogs. While this is sound reasoning, the data you are using is limiting.

Because you only observed cats, your conclusion may not be true for every cat. While your guess or theory may be incorrect in some cases, you can use that information to help you continue your research. While you can use data and evidence to back up your claim or judgment, there is still a chance that new facts or evidence will be uncovered and prove your theory wrong.

Professionals who possess logical thinking abilities—like inductive reasoning skills—are often better at decision-making efforts. Consider providing a specific example of when you used inductive reasoning skills in the workplace on your cover letter.

During a job interview , an employer may ask about your decision-making process. Take time to think about specific instances when you used inductive reasoning, especially when it resulted in a positive outcome.

Utilizing the STAR Situation, Task, Action and Result technique is an effective method for communicating your inductive reasoning skills to potential employers clearly and concisely. Here are the steps for using the STAR method :. Share the result. How did your actions address the problem? What was the outcome, and how did it affect the company or team? Understanding inductive reasoning and how to effectively apply this logical thinking process in your work environment is essential to success in any position.

Learning to recognize your inductive reasoning skills will help you highlight them during your job search and make a positive impression on employers during the interview process.

Reasoning skills are one of the most important soft skills employers seek in potential candidates. In addition to inductive reasoning, there are two other types of reasoning—abductive and deductive—that are important to understand and apply both in and outside of the workplace.

Where inductive thinking uses experience and proven observations to guess the outcome, deductive reasoning uses theories and beliefs to rationalize and prove a specific conclusion. The goal of inductive reasoning is to predict a likely outcome, while the goal of deductive reasoning to prove a fact.

Both types of reasoning bring valuable benefits to the workplace. Employers specifically like to see inductive reasoning on applications because it highlights your aptitude for critical thinking and problem-solving. In addition to including it on your resume, note it in your cover letter and at the interview. Inductive vs. Deductive reasoning is the act of backing up a generalized statement with specific scenarios.

Abductive reasoning allows for more guessing than inductive reasoning. For abductive reasoning, you analyze information or observations that may not be complete.