C.39.QR:4.2 - Identify the relation used by the partial work
Name the original subject and the working construction in ordinary subject language. Establish how work on the latter can contribute to the former. Use the specific relation needed for the next judgement.
| Relation used | Grounds needed for the return |
|---|---|
| Case and kind; narrower and broader kind | Membership criteria or a directed generality relation, and separate grounds for any claim about the wider range. C.3 and C.3.1 supply the relevant distinctions. |
| Constituent and whole | The subject’s composition, interactions and shared conditions. A.14, B.1.5, C.2.1 and C.20 govern different kinds of whole. |
| Method and performed work | The reusable operation, this occurrence, performer, inputs and conditions. A.3.1 and A.15.1 distinguish them. |
| Description, diagram or model and its subject | What is preserved, omitted or introduced, the correspondence being used, and the rule permitting the proposed inference. C.37 supports representation choice; C.29 supports mathematical model use. |
| Sample and target population | The selection process, target and conditions of the statistical inference supplied by the relevant statistical practice. |
| Measure and valued result | What the measure tracks, under which conditions, and which value judgement remains. E.13 supports the return from a proxy to the value it is meant to serve. |
| Compressed and fuller account | The questions and meaning retained, consequential omissions and the return to the fuller basis. A.6.3.CSC supplies that scoped compression. |
Several relations can occur in the same work. A model of a component is a representation of that component; the component’s relation to a system is composition. Keep both when the conclusion traverses both. An example can be an instance of a kind and illustrate an operation, with different consequences for each use.
Tracing a relation back identifies its other participant. Inferring a property of that participant requires an applicable rule. A correspondence can warrant selected inferences while leaving others open. For a many-to-one abstraction, recover the omitted distinctions when the returned question depends on them. The subject practice determines whether a deduction, empirical inference, construction or qualified analogy supplies the needed warrant.
Questions: What are the actual participants and relation? Which claim is being carried across it? What permits that inference under these conditions? What has been left out?