h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You've slipped up in that section unfortunately. The example you give is of the fallacy of affirming the consequent of a conditional deductive argument.

As you doubtless really know, an inductive argument relies on the weight of evidence obtained in the past to infer what will happen in the future (or what is generally the case). Your first premise would presumably be the conclusion of observations that hard-working students always pass their exams. That could be falsified by one contrary observation. No observation can invalidate a valid deductive argument; although it might, as in this case, falsify a premise - thus rendering the argument unsound.

Thank- you for your feedback, I will correct it (eventually).

And I would broaden the definition, saying that it relies on applying the specific to the general.

E.g. this stapler is blue therefore all staplers are blue.

Precisely so, Roadkill. Hate the example though. 'This electron has a mass of X, therefore all electrons have a mass of X' would be more congenial.

But plainly all staplers are not blue; whether all electrons weigh the same is less commonly known.