Which type of reasoning is typically used after gathering data to confirm or refute a hypothesis?

Deductive reasoning is utilized to confirm or refute a hypothesis after data has been gathered. This reasoning begins with a general principle or theory and applies it to specific cases to predict outcomes or make conclusions. Once the relevant data is collected, deductive reasoning allows investigators to test the hypothesis against the findings, determining whether the evidence supports or contradicts the original hypothesis.

In the context of fire and explosion investigation, this method is particularly effective as it helps establish a clear link between a hypothesis—such as a cause of a fire—and the evidence gathered at the scene. When investigators formulate a hypothesis, they may have general theories about fire behavior or causation. Through deductive reasoning, they then analyze specific pieces of evidence to see if they align with those theories, ultimately confirming or refuting the hypothesis based on the data analyzed.

Inductive reasoning, in contrast, involves making generalizations based on specific observations and wouldn't typically be used after data collection for hypothesis testing. Transductive reasoning focuses on drawing conclusions based on analogies and is not primarily aimed at verification of hypotheses. Abductive reasoning involves the formation of the best explanation from incomplete information but does not directly test hypotheses like deductive reasoning does.