While inductivearguments can fail because their logic is faulty or their premises are false, inductive arguments can also fail in a way that deductive arguments cannot: by violating the Total Evidence Requirement.
inductive argument(contrasted with deductively valid arguments)
An argument that is not valid — it is possible for all its premises to be true while its conclusion is false — but which can still transmit justification on non-deductivist views.
premises(as used in logic and philosophical arguments)
Starting statements or assumptions that are used to support a conclusion—like the opening claims in an argument that lead to a final point.
In fact, however, Rowe’s argument is unsound. The reason is connected with the point that while inductive arguments can fail, just as deductive arguments can, either because their logic is faulty, or their premises false, inductive arguments can also fail in a way that deductive arguments cannot, in that they may violate a principle—namely, the Total Evidence Requirement—which I shall be setting out below, and Rowe’s argument is defective in precisely that way.