State conclusions that are logical extrapolations from the evidence;
10 O*NET task matches
Batch:
Arbitrators, Mediators, and Co4.5/5
57%ok
Rule on exceptions, motions, or admissibility of evidence.
Administrative Law Judges, Adj4.3/5
57%ok
Rule on exceptions, motions, and admissibility of evidence.
Fish and Game Wardens4.6/5
51%ok
Compile and present evidence for court actions.
Judges, Magistrate Judges, and4.7/5
47%ok
Instruct juries on applicable laws, direct juries to deduce the facts from the evidence presented, and hear their verdicts.
Lawyers4.4/5
46%ok
Analyze the probable outcomes of cases, using knowledge of legal precedents.
Government Property Inspectors4.1/5
46%ok
Examine records, reports, or other documents to establish facts or detect discrepancies.
Mathematicians4.0/5
45%ok
Assemble sets of assumptions, and explore the consequences of each set.
Intelligence Analysts4.5/5
45%ok
Validate known intelligence with data from other sources.
Detectives and Criminal Invest4.4/5
44%ok
Examine records to locate links in chains of evidence or information.
Physicists4.0/5
44%ok
Describe and express observations and conclusions in mathematical terms.
Source:
Course learning outcomes from
EWU's official Course Inventory Management (CIM) system.
O*NET task matches are computed by comparing each learning outcome
statement against every O*NET task statement using sentence-embedding
similarity; faculty review confirms which matches count as
preparation evidence.
Sign in to SIAM
GitHub is available now. More sign-in options are coming.