On the topic of the third lesson in Talmudic logic

peace,
I listen to the rabbi’s lessons on Talmudic logic online and I wanted to ask the rabbi a few questions about the third lesson on the subject of Kal HaMor.
1. The rabbi argued in the lesson that Talmudic material is induction and not deduction, since the logic of the argument can be explained by adding data, and deduction, on the other hand, cannot be explained. In previous lessons, the rabbi argued that this stems from the fact that deduction works from generalities to particulars (therefore, it cannot be explained because the information lies in the premises) as opposed to induction, which is from particulars to generalities, and then there is room for error. Can the rabbi explain this principle in terms of the particulars? In other words, what are the particulars of the particulars from which we draw a general conclusion?
2. The rabbi explained that the relationship between a root and a tooth and a leg is the same relationship between a rabbi and a rabbi. So why did the slight and material difference between a rabbi and a rabbi result in a root paying half the damage in the rabbi, while the slight and material difference between a root and a tooth and a leg resulted in a root paying full damage in the rabbi?
3. Even if we assume that the law derived from the Qo’u changes when one turns it around, why did the Sages argue against Rabbi Tarfon on the grounds that this is too easy, since it is possible to learn the law of complete damage without adding to the one being condemned?
thanks.