Although both front and rear doors were found open after the burglary, there were pry marks around the lock on the rear door and deposits of mud near the threshold. It must be the case that the thief entered through the rear door and left through the front.

The statement given here represents the inductive argument which is a casual interference.

The inductive argument implies that the stated truth is only describing the conclusion as true. It means the conclusion is based on certain observations or evidence.

Casual interference is depending on the inductive argument's logic that connects the truth with conclusions. Hence, the truth is presented by analyzing through pry marks on front and rear doors.

Learn more about inductive argument here:

link

inductive; causal inference

Explanation:

This is inductive because a broad generalization (that the thief entered through the rear door and left through the front) came from specific observation (both doors were found open but pry marks and mud were found around the rear door) gave the conclusion that they entered through the rear and left through the front.in other words what was observed around the rear door brought about that conclusion.

In a causal inference, somebody tries to come to the conclusion that something is, or could be, the cause of something else.

sorry i tried to but i didn’t get it