EB

There have been threads on inductive vs inductive.

The reality is you do not have one without the other. In reasoning we often go back and forth between inductive and inductive zeroing in on a conclusion by trial and error.

While technically deductive logic is always true or can be proven true, that does not mean deduction always leads to a correct conclusion for a real problem.

One can have the proper form of a deductive argument where c follows from p, but there is no guarantee that that the argument reflects truth in reality.

Holmes is called the great Deductive Detective, yet in the stories he goes back and forth between deduction and induction. I read Doyle's bio. He was an MD who took on cases. He actually rescued someone from the gallows by proving him imminent.

In science and math deriving a truth uses deduction and induction as tools. The final test is always empirical.

There are several definitions. For me the defense between inductive and inductive is the starting point.

Given a true conclusion such as a murder with a body I work back developing premises. Or I see a evidence observationaly and a derive a conclusion. The logic per se is the same, and, or, if then. It is the string point.

A book on math proofs I read called it backwards vs forwards. Give a desired proof which it is not known if it is possible one can start at the conclusion or desired result and work backwards developing steps to support the conclusion, or vice versa. In reality it is a combination.

If II observe I an wet why am I wet? I observe it is raining and conclude if I go out I will get wet. I see my car is wet, and I enumerate the possibilities with probabilities. Did it rain or did my neighbor use his sprinkler?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
Your problem is lack of experience.