Inductive reasoning is weaker than deductive reasoning because it?

Deductive reasoning starts with a common presumption, declaration, or theory and then provides a conclusion on the basis of evidence. Whereas, inductive reasoning begins with a small examination or query to create a conclusion by investigating the associated issues.

Inductive logic depends on information that is utilized to anticipate or gauge the development of an instance or its conduct. Then again, deductive reasoning includes a sensible procedure of collecting data dependent on tried facts. Thus, we can say inductive thinking is weaker than deductive logic since it is simply founded on guess which isn't all-time productive.

faulty parallelism is a construction in which two or more parts of a sentence are equivalent in meaning but not grammatically similar in form.

the correct version of this faulty parallelism in the sentence is:

the hikers knew that the hike was six miles, that it usually required the entire day, and it would not be wise to start after 10: 00 a.m.

the problem is the last sentence, the first two have a basic subject+verb+object structure.

so, to give a proper balance to the structure, or better said, to give a parallel structure, we must write a basic s+v+o structure in all three sentences:

the hikers knew that the hike was six miles, that it usually required the entire day, and it would not be wise to start after 10: 00 a.m.