In an investigation, how do facts, inferences, and judgments differ?

• A. A fact is a verifiable observation; Inference is a conclusion drawn from facts; Judgment is an evaluative statement about importance or responsibility.
• B. A fact is an opinion; Inference is a guess; Judgment is a policy.
• C. A fact is an unverified claim; Inference is a data point; Judgment is a conclusion.
• D. Facts are unimportant.

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is to separate what can be observed or measured from what we infer from those observations and from what we decide about value or responsibility. A fact is a verifiable observation—something that can be checked or confirmed through evidence. An inference is a conclusion drawn from those facts; it’s the reasoning step that connects what is observed to a probable explanation or outcome, and it can carry uncertainty because it depends on the interpretation of the facts. A judgment is an evaluative statement about importance or responsibility; it reflects value, priorities, or decisions about what should be done, often based on both the facts and the inferences, but it is not a purely objective observation itself.

This matters in investigations because you want to document what was observed (facts) separately from the interpretations or explanations you propose (inferences), and clearly distinguish those interpretations from the decisions or actions you recommend (judgments). Mislabeling an inference as a fact or a judgment as a fact can blur what is known versus what is believed or valued, which can mislead stakeholders.

The other options mix up these roles: treating facts as opinions or unverified claims undermines the objectivity of the findings, and describing judgments as policies or inferences as data points collapses the distinct meanings of observation, reasoning, and value-based conclusions.