At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
You know that no matter how many examples you give to show that a conjecture is true, it does not prove the conjecture. It takes just one counterexample to disprove a conjecture. Describe a conjecture you thought was true based on many examples, but that turned out to be false based on a counterexample. The conjecture does not have to be mathematical.
Great question! The underlying principle is showing the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. One interesting example would be to say what people do when someone yells "Fire" in a crowded theater. You might observe everyone panicking. And you might be in the same situation over and over and always see everyone panicking, and then conclude that everyone panics in that situation, until you see the first person who doesn't and that would shoot down your conjecture.
Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.
That would be an example of deductive reasoning because you would be deducing (even though incorrectly) that everyone panics. You see lots of isolated examples and are then trying to come up with a general principle.