Astrategy we use to make inferences about characters is
cation
o setting + assumptions
make generalizations made about types of people
textual evidence + prior knowledge + human nature
only use direct characterization to understand characters

The best option to make inferences about characters is:

Textual evidence + prior knowledge + human nature

Explanation:

An inference is a conclusion based on some evidence and reasoning.

Evidence in making inferences about characters is textual evidence, and reasoning is prior knowledge + human nature.

Prior knowledge is everything we have learned. For example in this case, it could be how a King behaves, how he should be, how people of certain race, geography or ethnic group behave etc., what are their characteristics, how people in specific situations and conditions behave (e.g colonized people) - all this is part of our prior knowledge. Knowledge about human nature (this too is part of prior knowledge) is also considered while making inferences about characters.

Setting + assumption is not a correct strategy because although setting influences a character (not to much extent) but assumption is never allowed for making an inference.

Making generalization is also a wrong strategy because generalization are hardly correct.

Using direct characterization and eliminating textual evidence, prior knowledge will also lead to reaching a wrong inference.

1. all of the above

2. sensory language

in "people in peace, not profit and war" chrisholm uses inductive reasoning for her argument against defense spending by stating that the new administration, like most americans, wanted to invest in social objectives, so they must not want to prioritize defense spending. mr. nixon said "we can delay no longer in launching new approaches to the problem that beset them", but chrisholm points out that the programs were delayed anyways.