last

SIS 4070/5050

Week 15, Case Study Analysis of Competing Hypotheses - “Iraq’s Aluminum Tubes”

Instructions:

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.

Identify and assess each piece of relevant information from the case study 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.

Also, please keep in mind that this Structured Analytic Technique does not work if you only include or favor the information that confirms one’s preconceptions.

After completing your list of information and categorizing each 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. Which hypothesis has not just the most supporting evidence, but also has the most higher quality information; Is either hypothesis sufficiently supported?

Name: __________________

Week 15, Case Study Analysis of Competing Hypotheses - “Iraq’s Aluminum Tubes”

Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) Workspace:

Page 3 of 3