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]

2. The class went to the beach

[in contrast to]

3. The class went to the beach

it rained.
it rained.

[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.