Actually now that you mentioned, its abductive reasoning, i thought abductive was some subclass of deductive and didnt think it as something separate
Yes, abductive reasoning is actually a class of inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning.
It is more or less the opposite of deductive reasoning.
As two stages of the development, extension, etc., of a hypothesis in scientific inquiry, abduction and induction are often collapsed into one overarching concept — the hypothesis. That is why, in the scientific method pioneered by Galileo and Bacon, the abductive stage of hypothesis formation is conceptualized simply as induction.
My inductive/adbuctive leap, which I have stated many times on here over the last several years, is that NTJ thinking is more suited to inductive/abductive reasoning, while NTP thinking is more suited to deductive reasoning. I also believe iNtuition seems to be more related to inductive/abductive reasoning, while Thinking seems to be more related to deductive reasoning -- hence, the more robust iNtuition of NTJs (perhaps ENTPs, with extroverted intuition in the dominant, could be considered second to INTJs, but greater than ENTJs, in this regard) leads them to be better at induction/abduction, while the more robust Thinking of NTPs (perhaps ENTJs, with extroverted thinking in the dominant, could be considered second to INTP, but greater than ENTPs, in this regard) leads them to be better at deduction.
I also hypothesize that NTJs tend to have a more empirical approach, while NTPs tend to have a more rationalistic approach, but I believe this probably has to do with the fact that NTJs primarily use Te and NTPs primarily use Ti, and is not directly related to the attitude of their iNtuition (except by extension thru definition).