Deduction vs Induction (Part 2)

In the first part of this discussion we learned that Deduction is a fairly simple, straightforward approach in Scientific Reasoning. In this type of analogy, we cover a formula based on the procession of the premises entailing the conclusion - namely that the premises are true. To understand this we studied a few examples - and then chopped them into pieces to know which statement is which, meaning how the meaty bit conclusion will turn out to be.

That was Deduction, this is Induction - Inductive referencing will require some thinking to do. Let's just have an exemplification of an Inductive inference, and then we'll monitor what's happening.

Only 5 home-runs hit in the history of baseball 
have been over the distance of 100m.
All of them have been hit by Babe Ruth.
______________________________  

The 6th one will also be hit by Babe Ruth

For some very peculiar reasons - you'll have to become a bit imaginative here, as clearly seen - my baseball knowledge isn't up to date. But for pure understanding, just walk along with me... Right, the premises's first statement tells us that only 5 home runs have been hit in the history of the sport baseball - which have exceeded the distance of 100 meters. So far clear? Then; All of them have been hit by the same player (Babe Ruth). Okay, simple enough. Now, the conclusion of this premises is not entailed. But in fact is appearing to look like an assumption, a calculated estimation, worth pondering over its credibility.

There are, and there can be many other players who can hit the baseball at a distance above 100 meters. However this inference is saying that only Babe Ruth can. And relating to the context of the conclusion - he'll be the one to hit a 100 meter plus home-run next time too. 

The first 5 eggs in the box were rotten
All the eggs have the same best-before date stamped on them
____________________________________________  

Therefore, the 6th egg will be rotten too

This looks like a perfectly sensible piece of reasoning. But nonetheless it is not Deductive, for the premises do not entail the conclusion. Even if the first 5 eggs were indeed rotten, and even if all the eggs do have the same best-before dates stamped on them, this doesn't guarantee that the 6th egg will be rotten too. It is quiet conceivable that the 6th egg will be perfectly good. In other words, it is logically possible for the premises for this inference to be true yet the conclusion false, so the inference is not Deductive.