Copyright © José Klingbeil. The author hereby grants permission to use this article in electronic form only, in part or in whole, to any person or institution for educational purposes, provided no charge is made for such use.

Preliminary remarks

In these tests, we don't mean to denigrate inferences compared with observations. In the introduction text of these tests, it is specified:

These two types of ideas are essential to our own functioning, but when we confuse inferences and observations, we have some troubles.

Some inferences are more reliable than some observations. For example, some so-called "optical" illusions are less reliable than some modern scientific theories to mention two extremes. I prefer the inferential knowledge of the lethal danger of death-cap mushrooms to the observable good taste they might have.

Given these few inevitable restrictions, it is nevertheless possible to speak about observations and inferences in a sufficiently reliable manner. In the asymmetrical relation between observations and inferences, observations refer to direct experiencing (of an object or a verbal statement), inferences being the rest.

Inference tests

In other words, the story represents the objects, 'reality', etc. The true and false statements represent observations about the story, and the doubtful ones represent inferences about it.

Various types of errors

1. confusing a true observation for a false one or vice versa,
2. confusing a true or false observation for an inference (of any level),
3. confusing an inference (of any level) for an observation, true or false.

Error 2 is often the result of a 'semantic' (verbal) interpretation of the tests, leading to arguing a definition subtlety. ESGS tests try to avoid as much as possible these interpretations, by using simple words and easily understandable stories.

In the following, we shall consider mostly error 3.

Nevertheless, every mistake is taken into account in the final result, since good answers obtained at random can compensate them. In my experience of 'debriefing' these tests, I consider probable that the automatically computed results are generally more favourable than those a manual correction would return.

Confusing an inference with an observation

• "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc"
  The story speaks about two events following each other in time. The statement presents the first one as the cause of the second one. Causality is added.
  

  Example:
  

  [story] Claude got up when the telephone rang.
  [statement] Claude got up to pick up the phone. (doubtful)

• Telepathy
  The story speaks about what a character says. The statement speaks about what he 'thinks'. A worst, it does even not matter that what he 'thinks' is expressed in exactly the same terms as what he says. Nevertheless, in this case, benefit of the doubt will be given most of the time. But if the terms do not correspond exactly, observation will not be a correct answer.
  

  Example:
  

  [story] José says: "I must go now".
  [statement] José was in a hurry. (doubtful)
  

  Counter-example:
  

  [story] José says: "I am in a hurry.
  [statement] José was in a hurry. (true)

• Hearsay
  The story speaks about inferences that the characters are making. The statement takes these assertions as observations.
  

  Example:
  

  [story] Henri says: "José attends a meeting with a customer."
  [statement] José attends a meeting with a customer. (doubtful, if the story does not say how Henri knows it)

• Clairvoyance
  The story speaks about events that will happen in the future, thus inferential. The statement pretends that these events have been observed as happening.
  

  Examples:
  

  [story] José says: "I will be at the Chinese restaurant tomorrow at noon."
  [statement] José will be at the Chinese restaurant tomorrow at noon. (doubtful)
  

  Or
  

  [story] Claude asserts that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
  [statement] The sun will rise tomorrow morning. (doubtful)
  

  Counter-example:
  

  [story] Claude asserts that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
  [statement] Claude asserted that the sun would rise tomorrow morning. (true)

• Others
  The statement adds information to the story. It is the most difficult case because of the great variety of possible addition of information and because, very often, the adding is unconscious, from an A education that we received and structure of the language we use. This case cannot be easily thwarted by conscious 'reasoning', as was possible for other cases. It is thus on this specific category or errors that you should pay special attention during inference tests.
  In order to achieve that, you must 'relax' meanings and allow yourself to suppose 'all' what the story's formulations permit, and then compare with the statement.
  Be careful not to go too far in this direction: we are not trying to nit-pick. In our tests there is always a simple reason why a statement is doubtful.