Inference and Writer’s Viewpoint Trainer (Reading)
Build sharp inference and viewpoint skills with a hands on toolkit. Learn to convert hints into justified claims, read tone and hedges, and separate the author’s stance from reported voices. Use quick decision tests, mini case files with keys, timing goals, and a scoring rubric. The pack includes printable cards, drill routines, and a one week plan so you can practice daily and see measurable gains.
Foundation Snapshot
- Inference: A conclusion that must be true based on the text even if not stated directly.
- Writer’s viewpoint: The author’s opinion, attitude, or recommendation about a topic.
- Golden rule: No outside knowledge. Every claim needs a proof line.
Toolkit Cards
Card 1: Inference Triangle
Evidence line → Reasoning link → Safe conclusion. If any side is weak, do not pick it.
Card 2: Viewpoint Compass
Support | Oppose | Neutral | Balanced. Add an intensity meter: strongly, cautiously, slightly.
Card 3: Voice Check
Is this the author or a cited source. Signals: according to X, researchers say, the author argues, we recommend.
Card 4: Hedge and Booster List
Hedges: may, might, tends to, often, likely.
Boosters: clearly, certainly, strongly, will, must.
Card 5: Contrast and Cause Cues
However, although, yet, while, because, therefore, as a result.
Card 6: Quantifier Guard
All, only, most, many, some, few, at least, exactly. Match scope with care.
Card 7: Grammar Fit for Inference Gaps
If the question asks what can be inferred, your answer should be a precise paraphrase, not a new claim.
Card 8: Time and Condition Lens
Before, after, since, until, if, unless. Small shifts change conclusions.
Rapid Method
- Prime the question. Underline the focus and write a 6 to 10 word prephrase.
- Land in the right zone in 15 to 25 seconds using names, numbers, rare nouns.
- Lift proof: copy a 6 to 10 word phrase from the text.
- Test
- Inference: does the conclusion follow with no new assumption.
- Viewpoint: whose stance, what polarity, what scope, what intensity.
- Decide only when all tests pass. If two options remain, pick the one that needs fewer assumptions.
Mini Case Files with Keys
Case 1: Inference
Text
The trial café moved to a smaller venue. Despite fewer seats, revenue rose after they introduced pre order for pickup.
Question What is most likely true.
A Prices were increased heavily.
B Faster service helped more customers buy without sitting.
C The café opened for longer hours.
D The menu was changed completely.
Answer B
Why Proof lines connect fewer seats and revenue rise with pre order. Faster service is the safe link. Others add new claims.
Case 2: Writer’s viewpoint
Text
Several studies claim homework improves test scores. The author notes limits in these studies and recommends schools cap homework at one hour while funding after school tutoring.
Question The writer’s stance is best described as
A fully supportive of more homework
B opposed to all homework
C cautious about homework and in favor of tutoring
D neutral on both homework and tutoring
Answer C
Why Support is limited and a clear recommendation is given.
Case 3: Inference
Text
Although the museum extended weekend hours, weekday visits did not change. Evening programs were fully booked.
Question We can infer that
A weekend demand grew
B weekday tickets were discounted
C the museum closed some exhibits
D overall visitors fell
Answer A
Why Evening programs full plus longer weekends imply higher weekend demand. Others are unstated.
Case 4: Writer’s viewpoint intensity
Text
The policy will likely cut emissions if paired with reliable public transport. Until capacity improves, the plan should be delayed.
Question The writer
A strongly supports immediate rollout
B cautiously supports rollout after conditions are met
C rejects the idea in any form
D has no clear opinion
Answer B
Why Hedges and the condition show cautious support, not rejection.
Contrast Table: Inference vs Viewpoint
| Feature | Inference | Viewpoint |
|---|---|---|
| Core task | Derive what must be true | Identify author stance |
| Key cues | therefore, implies, pattern links | argue, recommend, should, we believe |
| Main risk | Adding outside facts | Confusing cited voices with author |
| Proof need | Two lines that force the claim | One clear stance phrase plus tone words |
Timing Targets
- Zone locate: 15 to 25 sec
- Proof capture: 20 to 30 sec
- Decision: 15 to 20 sec
- Skip at 60 sec and return later
Error Rubric
- V1 voice error: chose a cited view as the author’s.
- P1 polarity flip: missed not, rarely, lack.
- S1 scope stretch: some vs most vs all.
- T1 time shift: before vs after.
- I1 inference leap: added a new idea not in text.
- E1 evidence thin: no proof phrase written.
Score each item: 2 points correct with proof, 1 point correct without proof, 0 wrong. Aim for 18 to 20 points per set of 10.
Drill Routines
Drill A: Hedge to Stance
Underline may, might, tends to. Rewrite the author’s stance in one precise sentence with the same intensity.
Drill B: Chain Inference
Find two facts in a paragraph. Write the smallest conclusion that must follow. If you need any extra fact, it is too big.
Drill C: Voice Hunt
Mark author verbs vs attribution phrases. Decide stance only after you find the author’s own words.
Paraphrase Bank Starters
- supports → backs, favors, recommends
- opposes → rejects, criticizes, questions
- uncertain → cautious, reserved, mixed
- result → outcome, effect, consequence
- reason → cause, driver, factor
One Week Plan
- Day 1 Inference basics: 10 items, log I1 and E1.
- Day 2 Viewpoint basics: 10 items, log V1 and P1.
- Day 3 Mixed set of 15 with timing.
- Day 4 Intensity focus: find hedges and boosters in 3 articles.
- Day 5 Scope focus: rewrite claims with stricter or softer quantifiers.
- Day 6 Mini mock: 20 items under 25 minutes.
- Day 7 Review log, rewrite three weak proofs, update paraphrase bank.
Answer Log Template
Q no | Type (Inf or View) | Proof phrase | Decision | Error code | Fix note
Quick Reminders
- Prove it or leave it.
- Identify whose voice you are reading.
- Match scope and intensity.
- Pick the answer that needs the fewest assumptions.
Train with the cards, apply the method, and track errors with the rubric. Clear proof plus disciplined scope control turns inference and viewpoint questions into reliable points.