I have to standardize these arguments and determine whether they are inductive or deductive. Could someone identify whether I have successfully standardized these arguments, and whether I have correctly identified whether they are deductive or inductive.

A. You are wise;
Or else you love not; for to be wise and love
Exceeds man's might; that dwells with the gods above.

I am at a loss on this one. The "You are wise; or else you love not" is throwing me off. I conclude from it this person is in possession of wisdom alone, but again I do not know.

-You are wise or else you love not
-To be wise and and love exceeds man's might (but dwells with the gods)
Therefore
-You are not a god

I am having trouble identifying as inductive or deductive, as I don't really know what this argument is. If I am on the right track with what I have, I would say deductive.

B. The results of...experiment seem to run counter to the suggestion advanced by several child psychologists that putting an emotionally upset child in which a group of well-adjusted children will improve the emotional development of the upset child...Redl introduced a boy with considerable masochistic tendencies into a group of normal boys who were all friends and members of the same club. In a short time the disturbed boy had stirred up in the others "more sadistic pleasure temptations than they could cope with" and their violent aggressions disrupted the social relations of the entire group.

-Redl introduced a boy with considerable masochistic tendencies into a group of normal boys who were all friends and members of the same family
-The disturbed boy had stirred up in the others "more sadistic pleasures temptations than they cope with and their violent aggressions disrupted the social relations of the entire group
Therefore
-The results run counter to the suggestion that putting an emotionally upset child in with a group of well-adjusted children will improve the emotional development of the child

Deductive. The results do seem to run counter. I think that makes it deductive. Had the premises simply been offered as a rejection of the results, I would have said inductive.

C. We made our initial observations on the black Austrian honey-bee...An extremely simple experiment suffices to demonstrate that these insects do communicate. If one puts a small dish of sugar water near a beehive, the dish may not be discovered for several days. But as soon as one bee has found the dish and returned to the hive, more foragers come from the same hive. In an hour hundreds may be there.

-A dish of sugar water, though near a beehive, may remain unfound by the bees for several days.
-As soon as one bee has found the dish and returned to the hive, within an hour hundred may be there.
Therefore
-The black Austrian honey-bee does communicate

Inductive.

D. The nature of the mind and soul is bodily; for when it is seen to push the limbs, rouse the body from sleep, and alter the countenance and guide and turn about the whole man, and when we see that none of these effects can take place without touch nor touch without body, must we not admit that the mind and the soul are of a bodily nature.

-The nature of the mind and soul is able to push limbs, rouse the body from sleep, alter countenances and guide and turn about the whole man
-None of these effects can take place without touch
-Touch cannot take place without body
Therefore
-The nature of the mind and soul is bodily

Deductive.

E. Chesterton's thesis, anti-evolution, of course, is that there is such a huge difference between men and animals---men speak, create works of art, laugh, wear clothes, feel guilty, form governments worship God, and so on----that one cannot conceive of a transitional stage. The simple answer is that the same vast difference exists between a man and a newborn baby. The reply that a baby grows into a man is irrelevant. The point is that if a baby and a man can be the end points of a continuum, with no sharp line which the infant hurdles to acquire "human" traits, then there is at least no theoretical reason why man and an animal ancestor (much more "human" than a newborn baby) might not lie on a similar continuum.

-Chesterton argues that the huge difference between men and animals disallows one to conceive of a transitional stage
-That same huge difference exists between a man and a newborn baby (in fact the animal ancestor is much more human than a newborn baby)
Therefore
-There is no theoretical reason why man and an animal ancestor might not lie on a continuum similar to that of a man and a newborn baby

Inductive. The critic of Chesterton has gone from combatting 1 notion, to the supposition that all notions have been banished.

How'd I do?