Inductive reasoning

2-25. Inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which a person

uses a number of specific established facts to draw a general conclusion. Inductive reasoning is generally

conducted in four stages:

􀁺Observation (collect facts without bias).

􀁺Analysis (classify facts by establishing patterns of regularity).

􀁺Inference (from the patterns, infer generalizations about the relationship between facts).

􀁺Confirmation (test the inference through further observation).

2-26. Inductive reasoning is useful when there is limited information about a problem. Enemy situation

templating when the exact disposition of the enemy is unknown is a good example of the use of inductive

reasoning. Based on what is known about the enemy’s threat characteristics, operational art, tactics, and

previous operations, the analyst can extrapolate how the enemy will generally organize and maneuver on

the battlefield.

Analytical Processes, Methodologies, and Terms

1 July 2009 tc 2-33.4 2-9

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Example

Reporting indicates the enemy will attack the battalion’s defensive position.

The enemy normally attacks with no less than a 3 to 1 combat power ratio in its

favor, will attempt to exploit seams between elements belonging to different units,

and prefers to attack during daylight hours to minimize its opponent’s superior

night-vision capability.

The battalion’s right flank is the boundary with a battalion from another brigade

combat team.

Conclusion: The enemy will attack with a brigade-sized force during daylight

hours. The enemy main effort will be our right flank.

2-27. Based upon information provided in the above example, the analyst can infer the enemy’s most

likely COA from what is known about the enemy’s past operations.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

2-28. The scientific method refers to the various techniques used for investigating phenomena, acquiring

new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. Generally, the scientific method

follows a six-step process. However, even though the scientific method consists of a series of steps, new

information or thinking may cause an analyst to back up and repeat steps at any point during the process.

STEP 1 – DEFINE THE PROBLEM

2-29. The most difficult step in the scientific method is defining the problem. In most instances the analyst

will not be required to define the problem, which will be presented in the form of PIRs or other

“intelligence gaps” identified by the commander or intelligence officer. Whatever the form, the problem

must be stated in such a way that observation or experimentation can provide an answer. The problem must

be stated in an objective way without preconceptions or bias.

STEP 2 – GATHER DATA

2-30. The analyst must gather all available data relating to the problem. For the intelligence analyst, this

generally includes reviewing historical databases or data files as well as current intelligence reporting on

the problem.

STEP 3 – FORM A HYPOTHESIS

2-31. Based on a review of gathered data, the analyst develops a hypothesis that provides a tentative

explanation of the problem. It is making an educated guess at how to solve the problem which was defined

in step 1. The hypothesis must be focused on providing a solution that would be a contribution to the

overall intelligence picture. The hypothesis should lead to new problems thus demanding further research.

STEP 4 – TEST THE HYPOTHESIS

2-32. Testing the hypothesis is the action of confirming or rejecting the hypothesis through investigation.

Intelligence analysts use various methods to investigate their hypothesis:

􀁺Pattern analysis (time and event).

􀁺Link analysis.

􀁺Research.

􀁺Case studies.

Chapter 2

2-10 TC 2-33.4 1 July 2009

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

STEP 5 – DRAW A CONCLUSION

2-33. Intelligence analysts formulate conclusions by reviewing available facts as well as considering

relevant and reasonable assumptions when analyzing a hypothesis. When formulating a conclusion, the

analyst must be unbiased. If the facts and assumption do not support the hypothesis, a new hypothesis must

be formed and investigated.

STEP 6 – COMMUNICATE RESULTS

2-34. Intelligence analysts report results of investigation in several ways. The most common are answering

information requirements through clear and concise statements, formulating detailed assessments relating

to effects within the AO, developing threat COAs, conducting intelligence briefings, and preparing

intelligence summaries.

2-35. Each of these vehicles for communication is centered around the analyst’s assessment of the

situation based on available data. They are not just compilations of facts. When communicating, analysts

must explain what they know and why they know it; what they think and why they think it; what they do

not know and what they are doing about it. In doing this, the analysts provide an unbiased framework for

the commander to conduct an independent analysis of the situation.

ANALYSIS OF COMPETING HYPOTHESES

2-36. The ACH is a method which helps analysts make determinations on important issues requiring

careful weighing of alternative explanations or conclusions. ACH helps an analyst overcome, or at least

minimize, some of the cognitive limitations that make predictive intelligence analysis so difficult to

achieve. ACH is a very time-consuming method, best used by a large staff of analysts at operational or

strategic echelons. This does not mean that tactical units cannot use this method; however, significant time

is required. ACH—

􀁺Is an eight-step procedure grounded in basic insights from cognitive psychology, decision

analysis, and the scientific method.

􀁺Is a surprisingly effective, proven process that helps analysts avoid common analytic pitfalls.

􀁺Because of its thoroughness, ACH is particularly appropriate for controversial issues when

analysts want to leave an audit trail to show what they considered and how they arrived at their

conclusion.

􀁺Requires an analyst to identify all the reasonable alternatives and have them compete against

each other for the analyst’s favor, rather than evaluating their probability one at a time.

(Appendix A provides examples of analytical pitfalls.)

2-37. Most analysts pick out what is suspected intuitively as the most likely answer. They then look at the

available information from the point of view of whether or not it supports that answer. If the evidence

seems to support the favorite hypothesis, analysts tend to look no further. If the evidence does not support

the analyst’s hypothesis, the analyst either rejects the evidence as misleading or develops another

hypothesis and goes through the same procedure again. The main issue is that if analysts focus on trying to

confirm one hypothesis thought as probably true, then the analyst can easily be led astray because there is

so much evidence to support that point of view. An analyst can fail to recognize that most of this evidence

is also consistent with other explanations or conclusions, and that these other alternatives have not been

disproved.

2-38. Simultaneous evaluation of multiple, competing hypotheses is difficult. To retain three to five or

even seven hypotheses in working memory and to note how each item of information fits into each

hypothesis is beyond the mental capabilities of most people. It takes greater mental agility than listing

evidence supporting a single hypothesis that was prejudged as the most likely answer. It can be

accomplished, though, with the help of the procedures discussed here.

Analytical Processes, Methodologies, and Terms