To the best of my knowledge, inductive arguments are those which draw general conclusions from an ample body of particulars, and deductive arguments are those which draw particulars from general statements. Deductive reasoning does not introduce new information beyond its premises, but ostensibly proves
things beyond a shadow of doubt, and tends to characterize math. Inductive reasoning can introduce new information, but does not prove anything, and tends to characterize science.
I have no idea what standardization is but:
A - confuses me, but it appears to be deductive. I'm trying to rewrite that argument in terms of formal logic but it doesn't work
B - inductive, because the conclusion is based on an example, and a scientific experiment is involved: the experimental method is inductive by nature
C - inductive, as you say, because this argument is also scientific
D - deductive; this one can be easily be rewritten in formal logical terms
E - deductive; because my formal logic is poor, I would phrase the argument thus:
- If there is a "vast difference" between two groups, then there can be no transitional stages between them.
- There are "vast differences" between newborn humans and their adult counterparts.
- There are transitional stages between infants and adults in the human species.
- In this case, the antecedent of the original implication is true, and the consequent false. It must therefore be rejected.