Which reasoning uses general facts to arrive at a specific assertion?

Deductive reasoning is the correct choice because it involves starting with general principles or facts and applying them to specific cases to draw conclusions. This form of reasoning typically begins with a universal statement or premise, and through logical steps, narrows down this general information to a specific conclusion.

For instance, if one uses a general fact such as "All humans are mortal" and then applies it to a specific individual, saying "Socrates is a human, therefore Socrates is mortal," this demonstrates deductive reasoning. This method is characterized by its logical certainty in that if the premises are true, the conclusion must necessarily follow.

In contrast, inductive reasoning involves making broad generalizations based on specific observations, which is the opposite of what is taking place in this scenario. Faulty causation and hasty generalizations are forms of logical fallacies that result from flawed reasoning patterns rather than structured logical deduction.