Scientific reasoning is an important skill that encompasses hypothesizing, experimenting, inferencing, evaluating data and drawing conclusions. Previous research found consistent inter- and intra-individual differences in children's ability to perform these component skills, which are still largely unaccounted for. This study examined these differences and the role of three predictors: reading comprehension, numerical ability and problem-solving skills. A sample of 160 upper-primary schoolchildren completed a practical scientific reasoning task that gauged their command of the five component skills and did not require them to read. In addition, children took standardized tests of reading comprehension and numerical ability and completed the Tower of Hanoi task to measure their problem-solving skills. As expected, children differed substantially from one another. Generally, scores were highest for experimenting, lowest for evaluating data and drawing conclusions and intermediate for hypothesizing and inferencing. Reading comprehension was the only predictor that explained individual variation in scientific reasoning as a whole and in all component skills except hypothesizing. These results suggest that researchers and science teachers should take differences between children and across component skills into account. Moreover, even though reading comprehension is considered a robust predictor of scientific reasoning, it does not account for the variation in all component skills.