Plus, the examples (except the first) are all from the literature on mental models.
Then my criticism is of the literature, not your post.
I meant that you need to generate all of the models if you are going to ensure that the model with the conclusion is valid or as you say not ‘inconsistent’. So, you not only have [to] reach the conclusion. You need to also check if it’s valid.
Reality is never inconsistent (in that sense). Therefore, I only need to check to guard against errors in my reasoning or in the information I have given; neither of these is necessary.
That’s why you go through all three models. In the last example the police arrived before the reporter in one model and the reporter arrived after the police in another of the models. Therefore, the example is invalid.
In the last example, the type of reasoning I described above would find no answer, not multiple ones.
(And, to clarify my terminology, the last example is not an instance of “the premises are inconsistent”; rather, there is insufficient information.)
Then my criticism is of the literature, not your post.
Reality is never inconsistent (in that sense). Therefore, I only need to check to guard against errors in my reasoning or in the information I have given; neither of these is necessary.
In the last example, the type of reasoning I described above would find no answer, not multiple ones.
(And, to clarify my terminology, the last example is not an instance of “the premises are inconsistent”; rather, there is insufficient information.)