Deduce vs. induce

To deduce is to draw a specific conclusion from a general principle. To induce is to derive a general principle from specific observations. The distinction extends to the verbs‘ corresponding nouns, deduction and induction, and they’re the basis of what we mean when we say deductive or inductive reasoning (though a philosopher or logician might rightly point out there is much more to these terms)

A simple example: Because all animals with hair are mammals, we can deduce that the furry animal outside is a mammal. And because every mammal we’ve ever seen has hair, we might induce that all mammals have hair. Inductions are often questionable as they are usually very broad, general statements, but they provide useful starting points for experiments. Deductions are more often correct because they make specific claims based on sound principles.

Induct means to admit as a member or to place in a position. Though its root is different from that of induceinduction is the corresponding noun of both. A similar linguistic oddity appears with deduce and deduct (meaning to take away); the words’ roots are different, but deduction corresponds to both.



In practical use, deduce appears more often than induce in senses related to drawing conclusions. Induce appears much more often in its other senses, including (1) to lead to a course of action, and (2) to bring about or stimulate the occurrence of—for example:

Will three bulging-brained telepaths induce you to buy the latest limited-edition Star Trek posters from Mondo? [Wired]

So just how much of a unique, unrepeatable event is the tsunami-induced nuclear crisis at Fukushima? [Telegraph]

And because induce is so seldom seen in its logic-related sense (outside writing discussing logic or philosophy), many writers simply use deduce in its place. For example, according to the words’ conventional meanings, induce would make more sense than deduce in these sentences:

Anytime there’s a bad female standup somewhere, some dickhead Interblogger will deduce that “women aren’t funny”. [Guardian]

Another discusses how humans are prone to using logic to deduce the great mystery of existence. [The Province]


Check Your Text


  1. i suppose logicteach had nothing else to say.

    this provided a good enough explanation for me, well done.

  2. Thank you, that was very clear and understandable!

    • Roger Burnside says:

      HI Martha. Your posting on deduction vs. induction was both insightful and illuminating and yet somehow fascinating to ponder the efficacy of such a bold statement of clarity.

      • LOL. The article would have been much more clear if it provided tips about how to remember which is which.

        • Here is a method how it is possible to make 65 bucks each hour… After searching for a job that suits me for six months , I started making cash over this internet site and now I possibly could not be more satisfied. After 3 months doing this my income is around five thousand dollarsper$ month -Check internet website i use on MY-DISQUS-PROFILE-PAGE

  3. What is an inductive argument to one side of a parallel argumentation, would be included in the abbreviated form of its’ counterpart of the deductive side…given that equal weights of measure are existing in a measurable amount. Mark, Stanford Class of ’84

  4. Sherlock Holmes may be the culprit in claiming deductive reasoning in error instead of inductive when it is the latter that is correct.

Speak Your Mind

About Grammarist
Contact | Privacy policy | Home
© Copyright 2009-2014 Grammarist