Dan Kurland's  www.criticalreading.com
Reading and Writing Ideas As Well As Words

Questions/ Comments    Home Page

How the Language Really Works:
The Fundamentals of Critical Reading and Effective Writing
Reading / Writing
Critical Reading
Inference
Choices
Ways to Read
Grammar

Inference: Inference Equations

Inferences are not random. Inferences follow rules. Not mathematical rules, but rules based on common experience and social conventions. We draw inferences from the relationships of certain ideas, and can, in effect, write "equations" to suggest this process.

Consider the following two remarks.

The stock market fell. Burger King laid off 1,000 workers.
We have two separate assertions: That the stock market fell and that Burger King laid off 1,000 workers. But watch what happens when the ideas are related in specific ways.
  1. The stock market fell, after Burger King laid off 1,000 workers.
  2. The stock market fell, because Burger King laid off 1,000 workers.
  3. The stock market fell, therefore Burger King laid off 1,000 workers.
  4. The stock market fell, but Burger King laid off 1,000 workers.
Relating the assertions generates a wide variety of thoughts. (See "Relationship Categories and Terms)

In this first case, from evidence of change following an action (after), we might infer the action caused the change (This does not, of course, necessarily follow. Just because one event precedes another does not necessarily mean it caused it.)

In the second, the relationship is of reason/conclusion (because): the fall in the stock market is explained by the layoffs.

In the third, the relationship is again reason/conclusion (therefore), but now the layoffs are explained by the fall of the stock market.

In the fourth sentence, the relationship is of contrast (but), with the suggestion that the events are unrelated.

With each set of assertions we draw inferences based on the relationship of the ideas.

  1. Burger King's layoffs might have been the cause of the stock market's drop.
  2. Burger King's layoffs caused the drop in the stock market.
  3. Burger King laid off workers because of a drop in the stock market.
  4. The stock market drop did not effect Burger King's laying off of workers.
The overall meaning is conveyed not only by the individual assertions, the content, but also by how the elements of the content are related to one another, the structure. We identify the nature and relationship of parts, and infer underlying or unspoken meanings. Consider another set of examples.
The class went to the beach     and        it rained.
The class went to the beach     although it rained.
The class went to the beach     before     it rained.
The information is the same in all three sentences:
The class went to the beach
It rained.
But the relationship of the two assertions is different in each sentence:
  1. The class went to the beach     [series]     it rained.
  2. The class went to the beach    [in contrast to]    it rained.
  3. The class went to the beach      [earlier in time than]      it rained.
The meaning of each sentence is therefore different:
  1. bad luck
  2. perseverance or determination
  3. good planning
Depending on the relationship between the two assertions, the class is portrayed as disappointed, determined, or lucky.

What information would be needed, and how would it be related, to show:

Overconfidence.
A lack of self esteem.
Justified homicide.

Related Topics
Inference: Reading Ideas as Well as Words
Inference: The Process
Inference and Analysis
Inference: Denotation
Inference: Figurative Language
Inference: Association and Reference

Reading / Writing
Critical Reading
Inference
Choices
Ways to Read
Grammar

Copyright © 2000 by Daniel J. Kurland.  All rights reserved.
This Web page may be linked to other Web pages. Please inform the author

Questions/ Comments  |  Homepage

Dan Kurland's    www.criticalreading.com
td>