B.5.RA:4.4 - Explain the transition that is still missing

For a transition you cannot follow, recover the relevant definition, rule, earlier result or construction. Apply it to the participants at that transition. Say why these premises license this result and which condition is doing the work.

A useful self-explanation supplies this relation. “I understand this line” reports confidence; a paraphrase repeats the claim. Neither supplies the omitted inference when that is the difficulty.

Work a small instance when it helps reveal the operation or dependence. Then return to the stated scope: the instance may illustrate a general step, while the general conclusion still depends on the argument for all cases in its domain.

If the source’s resources do not close the gap, ask for the missing step with its premises and desired result. A proposed repair is new reasoning until it is justified. Keep the consequence conditional when a premise remains unresolved and conditional use is sufficient.

Where the missing step constructs an auxiliary object, use B.5.RC. Where it makes a statistical, causal or other subject inference, use that subject’s method and conditions.