Hey Cameron,

Hope all is well and this finds you abundantly blessed.  I think you’re spot on about the patterns and that you should share that exact concept.  Inductive study is all about recognizing patterns.  We call the patterns structural relationships.  This is what really sets Inductive study aside from other forms of study, not that other forms of study are bad, only that Inductive study is exclusively characterized by patterns.  If your study isn’t somehow bringing to bear the pattern that you uncover, or if you are unable to detect a pattern, that’s OK but its not technically Inductive.  Inductive is all about patterns – Patterns that lead to conclusions or conclusions that are based on patterns.  The pattern may be repetitious words, it may be the use of similar words, there are quite a few possibilities, but fortunately there is not an infinite amount of patterns(at least I don’t think so and certainly hope not). 


These are Inductive Patterns.  Based on the first four patterns and their movement you would choose the consecutive pattern that you believe would follow.  There would be only one answer and that would be supported by the logical progression of the first four images.

Think about it like this, when you see a clear pattern develop of repetitious words in chapter 2-5:1 of a particular book, then you see another repetitious pattern clearly surface in 9 – 13 of that book, you would with some certainty conclude that the author is using REPETITION to reveal something.  Very simple.  Lets say you go further to examine chapter 5:2 – 8 and you, trusting your conclusions based on the patterns you see the author using, find a continuity of thought(a pattern of thought) that connects all of the paragraphs together – and in addition to that, this continuity of thought isn’t a part of the nine chapters that surround this pattern, well then that is Inductive.  Therefore your conclusions are based on these patterns with some certainty that you can logically substantiate what thought you are proposing.

Or when you find an entire chapter that clearly has a repetition of a similar thought throughout the 7 paragraphs that make up the chapter and then in the next chapter there is a repetition of a new word that is not the same word as any of those used in the first, but it(found only in this chapter) means the same thing as the definition which connects all the continuity in the first chapter than obviously you would be prone to connect that second chapter with the first, particularly when the third chapter shares no apparent relationship whatsoever with the pattern.

When you find the repetition of an idea that comes to the surface in one paragraph and then the inversion of that idea two chapters later, you wouldn’t be crazy to then focus some attention on the paragraph IN THE MIDDLE. 

The point is that Inductive study arrives at conclusions based upon patterns.
Hope that helps.

Blessings, Leep