What kind of reasoning is primarily used to formulate a hypothesis?

Inductive reasoning is the correct choice for formulating a hypothesis because it involves drawing generalized conclusions from specific observations or instances. When a researcher gathers data or notices patterns, they use inductive reasoning to propose a hypothesis that explains those observations. This process relies on the idea that repeated observations can lead to a broader understanding of principles or rules governing a particular phenomenon.

For example, if a scientist observes that a specific type of fertilizer improves plant growth over several experiments, they might induce a hypothesis that the fertilizer is effective for plant growth in general. Inductive reasoning allows for the generation of new ideas and hypotheses based on gathered evidence.

Other forms of reasoning serve different purposes: deductive reasoning starts with general principles to reach a specific conclusion, transductive reasoning connects specific instances without general principles, and abductive reasoning seeks the most likely explanation for a set of observations. While useful in various scientific contexts, they do not primarily serve the purpose of formulating new hypotheses as effectively as inductive reasoning does.