is there an error in reasoning here?

Thanks for the answer Dr. Bo. I wonder what the relevant context would be in this scenario:
most people care about material wealth, therefore you are likely to also care about material wealth?

Immediately, I can think of saying this at a Buddhist colony or a convent - which would not be true. Other than that, it seems like a reasonable induction. If there is disagreement (i.e., someone says this is reasonable and another says it is not) it might be due to ambiguity . "Material wealth" can mean anything from having enough wealth to live comfortably (virtually all people care about) to being excessively rich, which I would guess that "most people" don't care about. So the disagreement with the statement is less about the induction being made and more about first part of the claim about most people caring about material wealth.

If we look at it from the point of view of deductive reasoning (going from a general rule to a specific case), the argument might go something like this;

Premise 1 : most people care about material wealth.

Premise 2 : you are a “people”

Conclusion : therefore, you care about material wealth.

For the conclusion to be valid (or true), both premises would need to be true.

To check the validity of that argument, we’d need to confirm the two premises.  I suspect we can buy into premise 2.  We might get some debate about premise 1.  

We’d need to define “most” and hunt up data to tell us if it’s true.  I suspect it would end up leading us to either undefined terms or a hasty generalization that we might not be able to support.