The Repeat Call Address
Over three weeks, a dispatcher notices a pattern at 14 Birch Street: a noise complaint on a Tuesday at 2210, a noise complaint the following Tuesday at 2205, a welfare check on a Thursday at 0130, and a noise complaint the third Tuesday at 2215. All four calls come from the same caller, a tenant in apartment 3B. The building has six units and a shared rear alley. On the third Tuesday, the responding officer notes that apartment 3B's lights were off and no one answered, while apartment 1A had loud music. The caller has not been reached on any of the four calls.
1. Apply Inductive Reasoning: what pattern, if any, is supported, and what pattern is not supported?
Read the worked answer
Supported: three noise complaints cluster on Tuesdays between 2205 and 2215, suggesting a recurring Tuesday-night disturbance. The welfare check on Thursday at 0130 does not fit that cluster and should be treated separately.
Not supported: that apartment 3B is the source of the noise. On the third Tuesday, 3B was dark and unresponsive while 1A had loud music. The pattern points to a recurring disturbance at the address on Tuesday nights, not to a specific unit. Concluding that 3B is the problem would be an overgeneralization from the caller's identity rather than from the evidence.
2. What should the officer recommend for the next Tuesday night, and why?
Read the worked answer
Recommend a directed patrol or observational pass at the address around 2200–2230 on Tuesday, checking the rear alley and noting which unit is producing sound before making contact. The reason: the evidence supports a recurring Tuesday disturbance but does not identify the unit, and the caller has never been reached. Direct observation resolves both gaps without prematurely confronting 3B. The welfare check should be handled on its own track since it does not fit the Tuesday pattern.