The article “ Salmon…. “ talks about Hume's ideas by following a student trying to apply Hume's thinking to the material learned in the physics class.
The explanation “because if always has before” does not answer the student as to why the physics instructor is confident that a pendulum will not swing higher than the point at which it is released. The instructor explains that the laws of physics explain why the pendulum will sing as it does. Hume's concern was how we recognize and understand whether one event causes another or is simply coincidental to it.
Another thing that the student learns in the physics class is the law of conservation of momentum. The student brings up the successful testing of this law to her philosophy professor. The student finds put that the laws are just a generalization and it has been tested under a specific number of conditions. It would be wrong to say that successfully testing a law provides conclusive proof of the law’s truth. If a law is true, certain consequences will follow.
In the end the student inquires about the seeming regularity of nature, and asks whether or not that gives us reason to believe the predictive accuracy of science. At this point the philosophy professor points out that Hume was also concerned about what justifies our belief that nature is regular.
According to Salmon, the basic question that Hume is trying to answer is how do we acquire knowledge of the unobserved. Salmon does not think that the problem of induction should cause us to give up doing science because the foundations of a subject are usually established after the subject itself.
THESIS : In this paper, I will argue that the rational response to the problem of induction is that the scientific method involves predicting the results of future tests on the basis of the results of past tests. The induction is the difference from observed to unobserved
Deduction is when you take a logical premise (which may or may not be true) and develop a series of logical statements from which you derive a logical (and if the premise was true), true conclusion

Induction is when you take a couple of observations and come up with a conclusion based on assumptions, rather than logical reasoning (the conclusion may or may not be true).

You can't rely on induction. What is the problem of induction. In its on various guises.
The epistemic rationality
Pragmatic rationality
ARGUMENT is that we cannot know for sure if the scientific predictions are correct, but because of that it is most likely to happen. The predictions were made based on the best possible evidence such as the information that was available and testing/experimenting on many occasions under different circumstances. IF WE Say that a belief is irrational , we mean that it runs counter to the evidence and in such contexts when we speak of evidence we are referring to inductive or scientific evidence. Because of the mentioned above you wonder if it is reasonable to believe in scientific conclusions based on available evidence. This shows what it means to be rational and for this reason you wonder if it is rational to be rational and the answer is yes of the questions make sense.
OBJECTION and reply to my objection : to this argument is that just because that happened in the past does not mean that it can happen again in the future. If we could be confident that the performed experiment can happen in the future and provide evidence for the law of conservation of momentum, than only than we can say the law is supported by evidence. The problem of induction is the problem of determining the circumstances such assumption can be substantial