Premise: The stock market grew in 2004.
Premise: The stock market grew in 2005.
Conclusion: The stock market will grow in 2006.

a) Inductive or Deductive reasoning? (explain your answer)

b) Does the conclusion follow directly from the premises? Why or Why Not?

Hi,

Wow, nice problem you have there...

Unfortunatelly i'm not familiar with those kind of problems. Maybe you can explain us in details what are u looking for.

Or maybe any of the others members can help us with this problem.

Looking forward to hear from you guys!

Cheers!

Hi livius,

I'm really not sure, either. I know deductive reasoning is reasoning that constructs or evaluates deductive arguments. For this problem though, I'm almost certain it is Inductive reasoning based on the pattern.
Inductive reasoning is based off an observation, rather than an assumption (deductive reasoning).

Here is an example:
Premise: If you own a house, then you pay property taxes
Premise: You own a house
Conclusion: You pay property taxes.

a) Inductive or Deductive? (explain your answer)
This problem is Deductive. True it is an observation that, if you own a house you pay property taxes, but it is an assumption that YOU pay property taxes.

b) Does the conclusion follow directly from the premises? Why or why not?
The conclusion does follow the premises

Hi miker0phone,

I've done some researches and i think you are right.

a) It is INDUCTIVE REASONING because your conclusion ("the market will grow in 2006") does not derive directly from the premises, BUT it moves from a set of specific facts (your premises) to a general conclusion.

b) As a direct consequence the conclusion DOES NOT follow directly from the premises.

This is what i think. I look forward to hear your opinion about it.

Cheers!