Select inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, or neither. a courtroom spectator merely looks at the defendant and says, "he's guilty, i tell you."

I'd say that it's neither.

Step-by-step explanation:

It says that he merely looks at the defendant. So, by that reasoning we know that the observer has no prior knowledge of the defendant's previous crimes.

a). 3 : 24 = 9 : 72

b). 10 : 18 = 5 : 9

c). 6 : 6 = 36 : 36

Step-by-step explanation:

a). Let the missing number is x. By replacing blank space by x

3 : 24 = x : 24

We can rewrite the equation in the fraction form.

Now we multiply this equation by 72

x = 3 × 3 = 9

So the ratio is 3 : 24 = 9 : 72

b). Let the number in blank space is y.

y : 18 = 5 : 9

In the fraction form the given expression will be

Now we multiply 18 on both the sides of the equation

y = 5×2 = 10

So the ratio will be 10 : 18 = 5 : 9

c). Let the number in blank space is z

6 : z = 36 : 36

By cross multiplication

z = 6

Therefore, the ratio will be 6 : 6 = 36 : 36