WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.020
- [Instructor] Hello readers.

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

00:00:03.390 --> 00:00:06.240
My mama always told me not
to jump to conclusions,

00:00:06.240 --> 00:00:09.600
but that's essentially what
the skill of inference is.

00:00:09.600 --> 00:00:10.830
It's not really a guess.

00:00:10.830 --> 00:00:13.200
It's combining what you already know

00:00:13.200 --> 00:00:14.400
with what's in front of you

00:00:14.400 --> 00:00:16.680
and drawing conclusions from there.

00:00:16.680 --> 00:00:18.660
It's filling in the gaps.

00:00:18.660 --> 00:00:22.050
So look, I can look at
this shape with gaps in it,

00:00:22.050 --> 00:00:23.970
and based on what the shape suggest

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

00:00:25.560 --> 00:00:28.620
I can say I'm pretty
sure that's an elephant.

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

00:00:31.620 --> 00:00:33.570
That's what we're gonna
talk about in this video.

00:00:33.570 --> 00:00:34.740
Not just making an inference,

00:00:34.740 --> 00:00:36.600
but going back and supporting

00:00:36.600 --> 00:00:39.060
that inference with evidence.

00:00:39.060 --> 00:00:40.650
This is an essential skill.

00:00:40.650 --> 00:00:42.480
Knowing how to read between the lines

00:00:42.480 --> 00:00:45.600
can help you make sense of
what's missing in a text,

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

00:00:47.490 --> 00:00:51.810
or maybe even to figure
out if someone is lying.

00:00:51.810 --> 00:00:55.410
Let me set up an example, a
little locked room mystery.

00:00:55.410 --> 00:00:57.930
There was a mouse hole
in the wall of a kitchen.

00:00:57.930 --> 00:01:01.230
There is a heavy glass jar
full of lovingly baked cookies

00:01:01.230 --> 00:01:04.680
with a heavy glass lid still on the jar.

00:01:04.680 --> 00:01:07.320
An hour ago, there were
a dozen cookies in there,

00:01:07.320 --> 00:01:10.560
and now there are only six.

00:01:10.560 --> 00:01:12.440
From the jar across the floor

00:01:12.440 --> 00:01:14.160
to the mouse hole in the wall,

00:01:14.160 --> 00:01:17.100
there is a trail of cookie crumbs.

00:01:17.100 --> 00:01:18.960
The question readers is, therefore,

00:01:18.960 --> 00:01:21.723
who took the cookies?

00:01:22.560 --> 00:01:24.600
The answer is not a mouse.

00:01:24.600 --> 00:01:26.430
A mouse did not take the cookies.

00:01:26.430 --> 00:01:27.480
It's a things to set up.

00:01:27.480 --> 00:01:28.470
It's a frame job.

00:01:28.470 --> 00:01:29.850
How do I know that?

00:01:29.850 --> 00:01:30.990
The lid.

00:01:30.990 --> 00:01:33.540
Based on my background
knowledge about mice,

00:01:33.540 --> 00:01:36.570
I don't think a mouse
would've been able to lift

00:01:36.570 --> 00:01:40.200
and replace the heavy
glass lid of the jar.

00:01:40.200 --> 00:01:43.230
Maybe if we knew a person
had left the lid off the jar,

00:01:43.230 --> 00:01:45.000
the mouse would still be a suspect.

00:01:45.000 --> 00:01:47.220
But I can infer from the evidence I see

00:01:47.220 --> 00:01:48.900
and my background knowledge

00:01:48.900 --> 00:01:50.880
that someone else took six cookies

00:01:50.880 --> 00:01:53.130
and left it incriminating
cookie crumb trail

00:01:53.130 --> 00:01:55.200
that led to the doorstep
of an innocent mouse.

00:01:55.200 --> 00:01:57.300
And when I am defending
this mouse in court,

00:01:57.300 --> 00:01:59.550
I will point to the lid as evidence

00:01:59.550 --> 00:02:02.070
in support of my inference.

00:02:02.070 --> 00:02:02.940
Let's do this again.

00:02:02.940 --> 00:02:04.710
But I'll give you a chunk of text

00:02:04.710 --> 00:02:06.960
to look at and then you'll get the chance

00:02:06.960 --> 00:02:09.690
to make your own inferences.

00:02:09.690 --> 00:02:11.790
Here is the first introduction

00:02:11.790 --> 00:02:15.513
of Agatha Christie's fictional
detective Hercule Poirot.

00:02:16.380 --> 00:02:18.437
The narrator describes Poirot.

00:02:18.437 --> 00:02:21.360
Poirot was an extraordinary
looking little man.

00:02:21.360 --> 00:02:23.700
He was hardly more than
five feet, four inches,

00:02:23.700 --> 00:02:26.520
but carried himself with a great dignity.

00:02:26.520 --> 00:02:28.740
His head was exactly the shape of an egg,

00:02:28.740 --> 00:02:31.560
and he always perched
it a little on one side.

00:02:31.560 --> 00:02:34.890
His mustache was very stiff and military.

00:02:34.890 --> 00:02:37.710
The neatness of his attire
was almost incredible.

00:02:37.710 --> 00:02:39.810
I believe the speck of
dust would've caused him

00:02:39.810 --> 00:02:41.400
more pain than a bullet wound.

00:02:41.400 --> 00:02:45.060
Yet, as a detective, his
flare had been extraordinary,

00:02:45.060 --> 00:02:47.670
and he had achieved
triumphs by unraveling some

00:02:47.670 --> 00:02:50.130
of the most baffling cases of the day.

00:02:50.130 --> 00:02:53.100
And for you, I have a
question now, readers.

00:02:53.100 --> 00:02:54.480
Based on this description,

00:02:54.480 --> 00:02:58.080
what personality traits
do you think Poirot

00:02:58.080 --> 00:03:02.070
has that make him good
at solving mysteries?

00:03:02.070 --> 00:03:03.300
I'll put on some music,

00:03:03.300 --> 00:03:06.990
or you can take this time to
pause the video and discuss.

00:03:06.990 --> 00:03:08.850
We'll meet back here and I'll show you

00:03:08.850 --> 00:03:09.960
how to answer this question

00:03:09.960 --> 00:03:12.343
by making some informed inferences.

00:03:12.343 --> 00:03:14.926
(upbeat music)

00:03:23.049 --> 00:03:25.620
Okay, let's go through it.

00:03:25.620 --> 00:03:28.350
So what traits does
Poirot have that make him

00:03:28.350 --> 00:03:29.610
good at solving mysteries?

00:03:29.610 --> 00:03:32.100
I think the words I'd
use to describe Poirot

00:03:32.100 --> 00:03:35.520
are fussy or detail-oriented.

00:03:35.520 --> 00:03:36.720
How do I know that?

00:03:36.720 --> 00:03:38.580
Let's go to the text.

00:03:38.580 --> 00:03:40.680
He carries himself with great dignity.

00:03:40.680 --> 00:03:41.850
He's proud of his appearance.

00:03:41.850 --> 00:03:44.797
He has this stiff little mustache.

00:03:44.797 --> 00:03:46.320
"The neatness of his attire

00:03:46.320 --> 00:03:48.180
was almost incredible."

00:03:48.180 --> 00:03:51.420
That is to say, literally
incredible, unbelievable.

00:03:51.420 --> 00:03:54.900
His clothes were so neat, unbelievably so

00:03:54.900 --> 00:03:56.460
to the point where a speck of dust

00:03:56.460 --> 00:03:59.370
would hurt him like a bullet hurt someone.

00:03:59.370 --> 00:04:01.860
All those details lead me to conclude

00:04:01.860 --> 00:04:03.930
that he notices little things.

00:04:03.930 --> 00:04:05.670
You have to notice the little things

00:04:05.670 --> 00:04:07.920
if you're going to keep yourself so neat.

00:04:07.920 --> 00:04:10.830
So exquisitely tidy and free of dust,

00:04:10.830 --> 00:04:14.130
a spectacular attention to detail.

00:04:14.130 --> 00:04:16.410
I can infer that that's
the personality trait

00:04:16.410 --> 00:04:18.300
that leads him to notice things

00:04:18.300 --> 00:04:20.310
other people wouldn't notice,

00:04:20.310 --> 00:04:22.890
and makes him such a great detective.

00:04:22.890 --> 00:04:25.050
As you read, it's
important to keep checking

00:04:25.050 --> 00:04:26.550
for text evidence that supports

00:04:26.550 --> 00:04:29.190
or discredits your initial inferences.

00:04:29.190 --> 00:04:31.590
Sometimes they'll be
wrong, sometimes right.

00:04:31.590 --> 00:04:33.630
But usually the rest of the text

00:04:33.630 --> 00:04:34.890
will help you determine that.

00:04:34.890 --> 00:04:38.310
Now, do I suspect that
you or I or any of us

00:04:38.310 --> 00:04:42.240
are likely to become
mystery solving sleuths?

00:04:42.240 --> 00:04:44.070
Well, yes, actually I do.

00:04:44.070 --> 00:04:46.380
I just think it'll be through the skill

00:04:46.380 --> 00:04:48.390
of inference in your reading practice

00:04:48.390 --> 00:04:50.430
and not through solving murders.

00:04:50.430 --> 00:04:52.470
Though from the evidence presented,

00:04:52.470 --> 00:04:54.873
I wouldn't rule out that possibility.

00:04:56.070 --> 00:04:58.473
You can learn anything, David, out.