3.3 Evaluating Inferences: Assumptions and Other RelevantArguments

A. The assumption audit (Unit 2.1 applied): for each inference, ask what must be true for it to work:• Necessary assumption test: negate it — does the argument collapse? If yes, it was load- bearing; attack it there.• The counterexample test: construct even one case where premises hold and conclusion fails — the inference is not necessary, only probable; grade it accordingly.B. Other relevant arguments — the full field a judge weighs:1. Counter-arguments (counter-considerations) — reasons pointing the other way; the fair analyst states the strongest opposing case before answering it (in limine honesty — the mark of good advocacy and good judgments).2. Rebuttals — direct attacks on an opponent's premises or inference ("the eyewitness had no opportunity to see").3. Undercutters — attacks not on the premise but on its connection to the conclusion ("even if he fled, flight proves nothing here — he also owed money elsewhere").4. The burden of proof — who must prove what (the proponent of the claim). In law the burden allocates the risk of non-persuasion and sets the standard (balance of probability / beyond reasonable doubt). In argument generally: the more extraordinary the claim, the heavier the burden — the critical thinker's proportionality.5. Fallacy check at inference level — post hoc (3.4), slippery slope, weak analogy, hasty generalisation — name them precisely.