The host drew an inference.
And the host was correct.
The host drew the correct inference partly because he knew something about about the subject matter -- about some car, auto mechanics, whatever.
And the host's interjected conclusion was inference.
What shall we call this kind of inference without using ungainly language?
That's not pretty.
More descriptive -- but a bit pretentious.
It was inference importantly based on knowledge of how some things work.
There's a lesson there for legal academics who theorize about inference.The lesson has been known to AI people for quite a long time. Some of them like to talk about "ontologies."They would make Aristotle proud. Sort of.A theory of being perhaps should reach beyond and below things such as tables.Still, the AI people are onto something. And they are wonderfully unabashed: they don't worry much about whether it's possible to have a theory of being.