Bsc Kumar   Educational
The option titled ‘data insufficient/inadequate/indeterminate’ implies as follows: Based on the information contained in the passage and an extra valid assumption if required, it is not possible to assess the give reference as either true or false. This situation parallels the scientist’s answer when he is questioned about the existence of God.  He replies that he has not seen God, and adds, “Since I can only conclude on the basis of what I know, I can neither say that God exists nor that He does not exist!”

We can paraphrase the scientist’s answer as follows: There is nothing stated or implied in the passage concerning this inference. And even after I have made a reasonable extra assumption on the basis of what I know, I can neither say that it is true nor that it is false. The scientist means that he has no basis on which to infer either that God exists or that He does not! For the scientist, therefore, the inference that God exists is neither true nor false; it is a data inadequate type of inference.

Thus, the data inadequate type of inference can be said to show the following traits:

It is about something that is neither stated nor implicit in the passage.
Even if the reader makes a reasonable extra assumption, the inference does not follow as true or false.
It usually provides a reason or cause for an assertion or effect stated or implied in the passage.
Here is a skeletal example:

Statement: A man was run over by a truck

Inference: The road must have been slippery

This is the ‘data inadequate’ type of inference.

Consider the words employed, ‘road’ and ‘slippery.’ Neither word is directly used in the passage. So we will have to decide if they are implicit. One can safely assume that ‘road’ is implicit. After all, trucks ply on roads, people also use roads for driving and walking along, and accidents like the one mentioned here do take place on roads rather frequently.

But can we be equally certain about the word ‘slippery?’ This word is neither mentioned in the passage, nor is it implicit, even if we make a valid extra assumption. In order to defend ‘slippery,’ we will have to first assume that a slippery road may cause a skidding effect. This is a valid assumption, but it does not serve our purpose. It is hardly true that road accidents involving pedestrians and heavy vehicles always take place on slippery roads. For all that we know, it may well have been that the truck was heavily laden and the road was pot-holed, which caused the truck driver to lose balance as he drove. Or it may also have been that the pedestrian strayed on to the middle of the road by mistake and got crushed by a speeding truck. There are, as such, too many assumptions to make here before we can say with certainty that the given inference is true or false. Thus, in this case, it cannot be inferred that the road was slippery or that it was not slippery.

On the other hand, the following example shows how the inference becomes true:

Statement: A man walking in the rain was run over by a truck.

Inference: The road must have been slippery.

Note: This inference is probably true, not data inadequate, because the statement mentions that the man was walking in the rain, giving rise to the real possibility that the road was slippery.

Note: There should be valid reason for saying that an inference is true, and there must be valid reason also for saying that an inference is false. When you do not find any reason for declaring an inference valid, do not make the mistake of marking it as a false inference. Such an inference is the data inadequate, not the false, type of inference.

2.

Moving now to the point that the ‘data inadequate’ type of inference usually provides a reason or cause for an assertion or effect stated or implied in the passage, let us can stick to our skeletal example.

Statement: A man was run over by a truck

Inference: The road must have been slippery

You can see that the inference appears to be providing a cause for the effect or event that took place. It is inferred that the man was run over by a truck because a slippery road caused the vehicle to skid and go out of control and crush him. But is this the only reason for trucks running over people? Or is it even a major reason? The answer to both these questions is No! This means that road might have been slippery, or it might not have been so, who knows?

Note: Had the answer to any of these questions been yes, i.e. had it been true that slippery roads are the only reason for trucks running over pedestrians, or even that this is the major reason for such an event, the inference would have been true--definitely true in the first case, and probably true in the second one. But in the absence of such answers, the given inference will have to be taken as ‘data inadequate.’

Let us take another skeletal example:

Statement: Global warming is a threat to humanity. We should immediate take steps to stop it.

Inference: People should be educated about the causes
Sep 5th 2016 23:38