The Problem of Induction is an issue, therefore it is a question of broad significance. A good question is: Are we justified logically in forming expectations of the future based on the past? It concerns the support or justification of inductive methods; methods that predict or infer, in Hume's words, that “instances of which we have had no experience resemble those of which we have had experience.” The problem of induction deals with if we are logically justified to make assumptions about the future based on the past. Hume says no.
David Hume's position is that induction is not a form of reasoning and there is no logical basis; he is an inductive skeptic. He compares and contrasts deductive and inductive evidence, showing that one is logical.
To Hume, deduction is a logical chain of reasoning. "All men are mortal. Barack Obama is a man therefore Barack Obama must be mortal."
As for induction, there is no logical chain of reasoning. It is based on habit. If you were to stick your hand in a fire 3 times and get burned each time, the 4th time you would expect to be burned, but you would not know that for sure.