dentify and list as much information as you can from the case study that is relevant to the two competing hypotheses:
- Hypothesis One (1): The aluminum tubes were meant to be used for enriching uranium.
- Hypothesis Two (2): The aluminum tubes were meant to be used for short-range rockets.
2. Assess each piece of information against both hypotheses by asking “Is this information consistent with (supports), inconsistent with (does not support), or perhaps “not applicable” (N/A) to each hypothesis. You may find that some information has the same relevancy to both hypotheses. A template is provided that you can use.
Also, please keep in mind this Structured Analytic Technique does not work if you only include or favor the information that confirms one’s preconceptions.
3. After listing all your information and categorizing it as consistent with (supports), inconsistent with (does not support), or “not applicable” (N/A) to each hypothesis, write a short paragraph that provides your “bottom line” judgment. For example, the body evidence supports the judgment that the aluminum tubes are most likely meant for ….” or, “the evidence is inconclusive…” Keep in mind that you will need to support any hypotheses with evidence from the case study.