Interpretation and Inference
What this domain tests
Inference questions ask you to draw conclusions that are implied but not stated. You must combine textual evidence with logical reasoning, identify assumptions, and read between the lines of tone and word choice. Key concepts: inférence logique (supported by evidence), prédiction, conclusion, présupposé (assumption), sous-entendu (implication), and ton (ironique, sarcastique, neutre, critique).
Traps to watch for
- Over-inference. The answer must be supported by the text, not merely plausible in real life. If you needed outside knowledge, the option is wrong.
- Under-inference. Restating a stated fact is not an inference; the question asks what follows from it.
- Absolute language. Options with toujours, jamais, tous, aucun are usually too strong.
- Emotional leap. Inferring a character's deep feeling requires textual cues, not a single neutral action.
- Ignoring qualifiers. Semble, paraît, sans doute signal uncertainty the author intends you to notice.
Worked example
Text: « Le directeur a relu trois fois le rapport avant de le signer, puis a demandé une quatrième lecture à son adjointe. » What can be inferred? (A) The director distrusts everyone. (B) The director is unusually cautious about this document. (C) The report contains errors. (D) The director dislikes signing documents.
Apply the rule of thumb: evidence plus one logical step, no more. Repeated rereading supports caution - (B). (A) and (D) generalize from one instance; (C) assumes a fact the text never states. Each distractor takes either too large a step or an unsupported one.
Rule of thumb
For each option, ask: Which exact words in the text support this, and how many logical steps does it require? The best answer takes one defensible step from explicit evidence.