A technique of generating inferences from premises through intermediates to a conclusion. You start by matching related premises to get intermediates; then match premises with related intermediates to get further intermediates, and so on, until a conclusion emerges.
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).