How it differs
I’m sure you can see now how very different deduction and induction are, and how easily you can tell the difference. Remember, if you are thinking deductively, your second point will always comment on the subject or predicate of the first. If it does not, you should be able to classify it by the same plural noun as the first, to test that you have a proper inductive grouping.

它们的区别
我相信你现在可以清楚地看到演绎和归纳是多么不同，并且能够轻松区分它们。记住，如果你在进行演绎推理，你的第二点总是会评论第一个点的主语或谓语。如果没有评论，你应该能够将它分类到与第一个点相同的复数名词中，以验证你是否有一个合适的归纳分组。

To demonstrate, I recently ran across two so-called deductive fallacies in a logic book, which went as follows:

• All communists are proponents of socialized medicine.

• Some members of the administration are proponents of socialized medicine.

• Therefore some members of the administration are communists.

为了说明这一点，我最近在一本逻辑书中遇到了两个所谓的演绎谬误，如下：

• 所有共产主义者都支持社会化医疗。

• 一些政府官员支持社会化医疗。

• 因此，一些政府官员是共产主义者。

• All rabbits are very fast runners.

• Some horses are very fast runners.

• Therefore, some horses are rabbits.

• 所有兔子都是跑得很快的动物。

• 一些马跑得很快。

• 因此，一些马是兔子。

In both cases, I’m sure you will instantly be able to see that the second point does not make a comment on the first point, so these ideas cannot be deductively related. What the second point does do in each case is to add another member to the classification (plural noun) established in the first point. Placing ideas in classes is defining them by a plural noun, and you know that that is induction.

在这两种情况下，我相信你可以立刻看出第二点并没有评论第一点，因此这些观点不能通过演绎联系起来。在每种情况下，第二点所做的是将另一个成员添加到第一点建立的分类（复数名词）中。将想法归入分类是通过复数名词定义它们，这你知道是归纳。

To test yourself, suppose I say to you:

• Japanese businessmen are escalating their drive for the Chinese market.

测试一下自己，假设我对你说：

• 日本商人正在加大对中国市场的攻势。

Can you pick which of the next two points relates inductively to this, and which one deductively?

你能分辨出接下来的两个观点中，哪个是与此相关的归纳推理，哪个是演绎推理吗？

• The fact that American businessmen will soon be entering the market is sure to stimulate them further.

• American businessmen are escalating their drive for the Chinese market.

• 美国商人即将进入市场的事实必然会进一步刺激他们。

• 美国商人也在加大对中国市场的攻势。

Clearly, the first is deductive and the second inductive.

显然，第一个是演绎推理，第二个是归纳推理。

Note that with inductive ideas you generally either hold the subject constant and vary the predicate or hold the predicate constant and vary the subject.

注意，在归纳推理中，你通常要么保持主语不变而改变谓语，要么保持谓语不变而改变主语。

For example, you could say:

• Japanese businessmen are escalating their drive for the Chinese market.

• American businessmen are escalating their drive for the Chinese market.

• German businessmen are escalating their drive for the Chinese market.

• The smart money is moving into China.

例如，你可以说：

• 日本商人正在加大对中国市场的攻势。

• 美国商人正在加大对中国市场的攻势。

• 德国商人正在加大对中国市场的攻势。

• 聪明的钱正在流向中国。

Or you could say:

• Japanese businessmen are escalating their drive for the Chinese market.

• Japanese businessmen are escalating their drive for the Indian market.

• Japanese businessmen are escalating their drive for the Australian market.

• Japanese businessmen are moving aggressively into Southeast Asia.

或者你可以说：

• 日本商人正在加大对中国市场的攻势。

• 日本商人正在加大对印度市场的攻势。

• 日本商人正在加大对澳大利亚市场的攻势。

• 日本商人正在积极进军东南亚市场。

It is interesting to note that whether you couple the ideas to form an inductive grouping or the beginning of a deductive line of reasoning, your mind automatically expects either a summarizing statement or a ‘therefore’ point.

有趣的是，无论你将观点组合成一个归纳分组还是演绎推理的开端，你的大脑都会自动期待一个总结性陈述或“因此”的结论。

This expectation of the mind for deductive and inductive arguments to be completed often leads the reader to project his thinking ahead, to formulate what he thinks your next point will be.

这种对完成演绎和归纳推理的期待通常会让读者提前预测你的思路，推测出他认为你的下一点将是什么。

If his thinking is different from yours, he can become both confused and annoyed. Consequently, you want to make sure that he will easily recognize the direction in which your thinking is tending by giving him the top point before you state the ideas grouped below.

如果他的想法与你的不同，他可能会感到困惑甚至恼怒。因此，你需要确保他能够轻松识别你的思路方向，通过在陈述下方分组的观点之前，先给出顶部的核心观点。