A technique of generating inferences from a hypothesis of the conclusion, through intermediates, to premises. You start with the concluding hypothesis, match it with related premises to get a new hypothesis, then match it with further premises to get another hypothesis, and so on, until the last hypothesis is confirmed. Then, the concluding hypothesis is also confirmed.
Published in Chapter:
Inference Tree Use to Design Arguments in Expository Reports
Jens Mende (University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa)
Copyright: © 2009
|Pages: 10
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59904-845-1.ch056
Abstract
When they write essays, many students merely attempt ‘to fill pages with material gathered from sources’ (Erion, 2000). Consequently, they produce inane arguments of the form: Adams said this, Brown said that, Cohen said the other, etc. Conclusion: much has been written about this topic. This is unacceptable both in academic ICT courses and subsequently in the ICT profession. In academe, a written argument should ‘make a leap from the raw materials of the library to an informed opinion’ (Fasel, 1963). In the profession, a written argument should similarly make a leap from a present state of affairs to a desired future state. So in both situations, writers should be able to devise a report that contains an argument from available facts towards an intelligent conclusion. This kind of report is called an ‘expository report’ (Trimble, 1975), or an ‘argumentative report’ (Dykeman, 1974).