Analytic products should indicate and explain the basis for the uncertainties associated with major analytic judgments, specifically ______ of occurrence of an event or development, and the ______ in the basis for this judgment.

Analytic products should indicate and explain the basis for the uncertainties associated with major analytic judgments, specifically ______ of occurrence of an event or development, and the ______ in the basis for this judgment.

• A. The likelihood and analyst's confidence
• B. The probability and strength of support
• C. The frequency and impact
• D. The risk and uncertainty of data

Answer: (A)

Uncertainty in analytic judgments is presented through two connected ideas: how likely the event or development is to occur, and how confident the analyst is in the basis for that judgment. The first part is about the chance of the event happening—expressed as likelihood. The second part focuses on the analyst’s confidence in the reasoning, data, and methods that support the judgment—the degree of confidence in the basis. This pair lets readers gauge both the probability of an outcome and how solid the reasoning behind that assessment is. Why the other ideas don’t fit as well: describing the event’s likelihood captures the probability of occurrence, not the quality of the evidence. The notion of “strength of support” addresses how strongly the evidence backs the conclusion, but the prompt asks for the analyst’s confidence in the basis itself, not just how persuasive the evidence appears. Terms like frequency and impact shift the focus away from uncertainty in the judgment, and mixing risk with data uncertainty doesn’t isolate the two specific components analysts are expected to disclose: probability and confidence in the basis.

Uncertainty in analytic judgments is presented through two connected ideas: how likely the event or development is to occur, and how confident the analyst is in the basis for that judgment. The first part is about the chance of the event happening—expressed as likelihood. The second part focuses on the analyst’s confidence in the reasoning, data, and methods that support the judgment—the degree of confidence in the basis. This pair lets readers gauge both the probability of an outcome and how solid the reasoning behind that assessment is.

Why the other ideas don’t fit as well: describing the event’s likelihood captures the probability of occurrence, not the quality of the evidence. The notion of “strength of support” addresses how strongly the evidence backs the conclusion, but the prompt asks for the analyst’s confidence in the basis itself, not just how persuasive the evidence appears. Terms like frequency and impact shift the focus away from uncertainty in the judgment, and mixing risk with data uncertainty doesn’t isolate the two specific components analysts are expected to disclose: probability and confidence in the basis.