An inference joins supplied facts into a conclusion the text supports, even when the conclusion is not stated verbatim. It requires evidence rather than a plausible story. Strong options often preserve a small qualification; an unsupported universal claim can sound more decisive while being less defensible.
Reason through the task
State the evidence before the conclusion. Ask whether the proposed inference must be consistent with every relevant detail, or whether it needs an extra assumption about motives, future outcomes or unseen conditions. Keep possibility separate from certainty. “May help” does not establish “always works”; permission does not establish enthusiasm. The useful question is how far these particular observations allow you to go, rather than what you generally believe about the subject.
Worked example and a tempting error
Original example: a manager allows an employee to include an alternative design in a proposal, but says nothing about choosing it. We can infer that the alternative may now be considered. We cannot infer that the manager prefers it or that it will be adopted. “The manager reluctantly rejects the employee’s reasoning” is also unsupported: silence about preference is not evidence of rejection. The warranted inference describes the opening created by permission while leaving the outcome unresolved.
Try a different case
Transfer: twelve plants grow better under one lamp than under another during a two-week trial. Does this show the first lamp will improve every plant species? No: that claim extends beyond the sample and period. A defensible inference is that the result gives a reason to investigate the lamp further under comparable conditions. Limited evidence can justify inquiry without proving the strongest practical claim.