In Natural Deduction in what way is the existential and universal quantifiers treated differently by the rules of $\forall$-introduction and $\exists$-introduction?
They look really similar in their definitions?:
$\forall$-introduction: $\frac{\frac{}{A(c)}}{\forall x A(x)}$ Provided that c is a new constant symbol
$\exists$-introduction: $\frac{A(t)}{\exists x A(x)}$
Well, say $c$ is a constant symbol. Then the rule tells you that you can conclude $\exists{x}A(x)$, but you certainly can't conclude $\forall{x}A(x)$.
For an example: Suppose you are working with real numbers and $A(0)$ is stating that $\forall{y}$ $0.y=0$ (i.e. multiply any number by $0$ and you get back $0$). So it is correct to conclude $\exists{x}\forall{y}$ $x.y=x$ (i.e. there is some number s.t. if you multiply any number with that number you get the initial number back). It is certainly not correct to conclude $\forall{x}\forall{y}$ $x.y=x$ (i.e. the product of any two numbers is equal to the first number.)
Edit 1: I'm not really clear on what you mean by "new", but I think the point that is being attempted is the following (suppose that the only constant symbols you have are $0,1$): Suppose that you assume $c$ is some arbitrary element and you manage to prove some thing about $c$, then you can conclude for all $x$. For example, suppose $c$ is non-zero number. Then you can prove $\exists{y}$ s.t. $c.y=1$. So you can conclude for all $x$, if $x$ is non-zero, then there is some $y$ s.t. $x.y=1$. However you have $1.1=1$. You can't conclude for all $x$, $x.x=x$. But you can conclude there is some $x$ for which $x.x=x$