0:00:00.000,0:00:01.020
- [Instructor] Hello readers.

0:00:01.020,0:00:03.390
Let's play detective, shall we?

0:00:03.390,0:00:06.240
My mama always told me not[br]to jump to conclusions,

0:00:06.240,0:00:09.600
but that's essentially what[br]the skill of inference is.

0:00:09.600,0:00:10.830
It's not really a guess.

0:00:10.830,0:00:13.200
It's combining what you already know

0:00:13.200,0:00:14.400
with what's in front of you

0:00:14.400,0:00:16.680
and drawing conclusions from there.

0:00:16.680,0:00:18.660
It's filling in the gaps.

0:00:18.660,0:00:22.050
So look, I can look at[br]this shape with gaps in it,

0:00:22.050,0:00:23.970
and based on what the shape suggest

0:00:23.970,0:00:25.560
and based on what I already know,

0:00:25.560,0:00:28.620
I can say I'm pretty[br]sure that's an elephant.

0:00:28.620,0:00:31.620
When I do that, I'm making an inference.

0:00:31.620,0:00:33.570
That's what we're gonna[br]talk about in this video.

0:00:33.570,0:00:34.740
Not just making an inference,

0:00:34.740,0:00:36.600
but going back and supporting

0:00:36.600,0:00:39.060
that inference with evidence.

0:00:39.060,0:00:40.650
This is an essential skill.

0:00:40.650,0:00:42.480
Knowing how to read between the lines

0:00:42.480,0:00:45.600
can help you make sense of[br]what's missing in a text,

0:00:45.600,0:00:47.490
of what's being left unsaid,

0:00:47.490,0:00:51.810
or maybe even to figure[br]out if someone is lying.

0:00:51.810,0:00:55.410
Let me set up an example, a[br]little locked room mystery.

0:00:55.410,0:00:57.930
There was a mouse hole[br]in the wall of a kitchen.

0:00:57.930,0:01:01.230
There is a heavy glass jar[br]full of lovingly baked cookies

0:01:01.230,0:01:04.680
with a heavy glass lid still on the jar.

0:01:04.680,0:01:07.320
An hour ago, there were[br]a dozen cookies in there,

0:01:07.320,0:01:10.560
and now there are only six.

0:01:10.560,0:01:12.440
From the jar across the floor

0:01:12.440,0:01:14.160
to the mouse hole in the wall,

0:01:14.160,0:01:17.100
there is a trail of cookie crumbs.

0:01:17.100,0:01:18.960
The question readers is, therefore,

0:01:18.960,0:01:21.723
who took the cookies?

0:01:22.560,0:01:24.600
The answer is not a mouse.

0:01:24.600,0:01:26.430
A mouse did not take the cookies.

0:01:26.430,0:01:27.480
It's a things to set up.

0:01:27.480,0:01:28.470
It's a frame job.

0:01:28.470,0:01:29.850
How do I know that?

0:01:29.850,0:01:30.990
The lid.

0:01:30.990,0:01:33.540
Based on my background[br]knowledge about mice,

0:01:33.540,0:01:36.570
I don't think a mouse[br]would've been able to lift

0:01:36.570,0:01:40.200
and replace the heavy[br]glass lid of the jar.

0:01:40.200,0:01:43.230
Maybe if we knew a person[br]had left the lid off the jar,

0:01:43.230,0:01:45.000
the mouse would still be a suspect.

0:01:45.000,0:01:47.220
But I can infer from the evidence I see

0:01:47.220,0:01:48.900
and my background knowledge

0:01:48.900,0:01:50.880
that someone else took six cookies

0:01:50.880,0:01:53.130
and left it incriminating[br]cookie crumb trail

0:01:53.130,0:01:55.200
that led to the doorstep[br]of an innocent mouse.

0:01:55.200,0:01:57.300
And when I am defending[br]this mouse in court,

0:01:57.300,0:01:59.550
I will point to the lid as evidence

0:01:59.550,0:02:02.070
in support of my inference.

0:02:02.070,0:02:02.940
Let's do this again.

0:02:02.940,0:02:04.710
But I'll give you a chunk of text

0:02:04.710,0:02:06.960
to look at and then you'll get the chance

0:02:06.960,0:02:09.690
to make your own inferences.

0:02:09.690,0:02:11.790
Here is the first introduction

0:02:11.790,0:02:15.513
of Agatha Christie's fictional[br]detective Hercule Poirot.

0:02:16.380,0:02:18.437
The narrator describes Poirot.

0:02:18.437,0:02:21.360
Poirot was an extraordinary[br]looking little man.

0:02:21.360,0:02:23.700
He was hardly more than[br]five feet, four inches,

0:02:23.700,0:02:26.520
but carried himself with a great dignity.

0:02:26.520,0:02:28.740
His head was exactly the shape of an egg,

0:02:28.740,0:02:31.560
and he always perched[br]it a little on one side.

0:02:31.560,0:02:34.890
His mustache was very stiff and military.

0:02:34.890,0:02:37.710
The neatness of his attire[br]was almost incredible.

0:02:37.710,0:02:39.810
I believe the speck of[br]dust would've caused him

0:02:39.810,0:02:41.400
more pain than a bullet wound.

0:02:41.400,0:02:45.060
Yet, as a detective, his[br]flare had been extraordinary,

0:02:45.060,0:02:47.670
and he had achieved[br]triumphs by unraveling some

0:02:47.670,0:02:50.130
of the most baffling cases of the day.

0:02:50.130,0:02:53.100
And for you, I have a[br]question now, readers.

0:02:53.100,0:02:54.480
Based on this description,

0:02:54.480,0:02:58.080
what personality traits[br]do you think Poirot

0:02:58.080,0:03:02.070
has that make him good[br]at solving mysteries?

0:03:02.070,0:03:03.300
I'll put on some music,

0:03:03.300,0:03:06.990
or you can take this time to[br]pause the video and discuss.

0:03:06.990,0:03:08.850
We'll meet back here and I'll show you

0:03:08.850,0:03:09.960
how to answer this question

0:03:09.960,0:03:12.343
by making some informed inferences.

0:03:12.343,0:03:14.926
(upbeat music)

0:03:23.049,0:03:25.620
Okay, let's go through it.

0:03:25.620,0:03:28.350
So what traits does[br]Poirot have that make him

0:03:28.350,0:03:29.610
good at solving mysteries?

0:03:29.610,0:03:32.100
I think the words I'd[br]use to describe Poirot

0:03:32.100,0:03:35.520
are fussy or detail-oriented.

0:03:35.520,0:03:36.720
How do I know that?

0:03:36.720,0:03:38.580
Let's go to the text.

0:03:38.580,0:03:40.680
He carries himself with great dignity.

0:03:40.680,0:03:41.850
He's proud of his appearance.

0:03:41.850,0:03:44.797
He has this stiff little mustache.

0:03:44.797,0:03:46.320
"The neatness of his attire

0:03:46.320,0:03:48.180
was almost incredible."

0:03:48.180,0:03:51.420
That is to say, literally[br]incredible, unbelievable.

0:03:51.420,0:03:54.900
His clothes were so neat, unbelievably so

0:03:54.900,0:03:56.460
to the point where a speck of dust

0:03:56.460,0:03:59.370
would hurt him like a bullet hurt someone.

0:03:59.370,0:04:01.860
All those details lead me to conclude

0:04:01.860,0:04:03.930
that he notices little things.

0:04:03.930,0:04:05.670
You have to notice the little things

0:04:05.670,0:04:07.920
if you're going to keep yourself so neat.

0:04:07.920,0:04:10.830
So exquisitely tidy and free of dust,

0:04:10.830,0:04:14.130
a spectacular attention to detail.

0:04:14.130,0:04:16.410
I can infer that that's[br]the personality trait

0:04:16.410,0:04:18.300
that leads him to notice things

0:04:18.300,0:04:20.310
other people wouldn't notice,

0:04:20.310,0:04:22.890
and makes him such a great detective.

0:04:22.890,0:04:25.050
As you read, it's[br]important to keep checking

0:04:25.050,0:04:26.550
for text evidence that supports

0:04:26.550,0:04:29.190
or discredits your initial inferences.

0:04:29.190,0:04:31.590
Sometimes they'll be[br]wrong, sometimes right.

0:04:31.590,0:04:33.630
But usually the rest of the text

0:04:33.630,0:04:34.890
will help you determine that.

0:04:34.890,0:04:38.310
Now, do I suspect that[br]you or I or any of us

0:04:38.310,0:04:42.240
are likely to become[br]mystery solving sleuths?

0:04:42.240,0:04:44.070
Well, yes, actually I do.

0:04:44.070,0:04:46.380
I just think it'll be through the skill

0:04:46.380,0:04:48.390
of inference in your reading practice

0:04:48.390,0:04:50.430
and not through solving murders.

0:04:50.430,0:04:52.470
Though from the evidence presented,

0:04:52.470,0:04:54.873
I wouldn't rule out that possibility.

0:04:56.070,0:04:58.473
You can learn anything, David, out.