Reporting What You Know vs What You Assume: English With Lioness
Learn to separate direct knowledge, reported information, inference, and guesses in English with a practical source-and-certainty method.
Before you report something, label where the information came from, state only what that source supports, and choose certainty language that matches what you actually know.
“The package arrived.” Did you see it? Did someone tell you? Did the tracking page update? Or are you guessing because the driver’s van is outside? English can show all four—and those are not the same claim.
Use SOURCE → STATEMENT → CERTAINTY
| Source | What you can safely state | Useful English |
|---|---|---|
| You directly saw or heard it | Describe what you actually observed | “I saw…”, “I heard…”, “The screen shows…” |
| Another person or document told you | Keep the source attached | “Maya said…”, “According to the schedule…” |
| Clues point to a conclusion | Present it as an inference, not direct knowledge | “It looks like…”, “That suggests…”, “It might…” |
| You have little solid support | Mark it as a guess or uncertain view | “I think…”, “I’m not sure, but…”, “I may be wrong, but…” |
The rule is simple: do not promote a guess into a fact.
One situation, four different claims
Suppose everyone is waiting for a package.
- Direct observation: “I saw the package at reception.”
- Reported information: “Nina said the package arrived.”
- Inference: “The tracking page changed to delivered, so it looks like the package arrived.”
- Low-confidence assumption: “I think the package may have arrived, but I haven’t checked.”
The event is similar. The speaker’s relationship to the information is not.
Direct observation: stop where your evidence stops
You walk past reception and see a parcel with your company’s name on it. You can accurately say:
“I saw the parcel at reception.”
But this is a bigger claim:
“The customer received the parcel.”
Your observation does not establish that. A grammatically clean sentence can still claim more than your evidence supports. Grammar cannot audit your evidence for you.
A useful self-check
Ask: What did I literally see, hear, read, or experience? Start there. Add a conclusion only when you clearly mark it as a conclusion.
Reported information: keep the source attached
If someone else supplied the information, English gives you several simple ways to show that.
- “Maya said the client moved the deadline.”
- “The email says the refund was processed.”
- “According to the schedule, the train leaves at 18:40.”
British Council explains reported speech as telling someone what another person said. Cambridge explains that according to means “as reported by” or “as stated by” and normally points to another person or source.
That source label matters because reporting a statement does not prove the statement is true. “Maya said the deadline changed” tells us what Maya said. It does not magically turn the deadline change into your direct observation.
Be careful with stronger reporting verbs
British Council’s lesson on reporting verbs shows that English has verbs more specific than say, tell, and ask. But words such as warned, admitted, or denied add meaning. If you do not know that the original speaker was actually warning, admitting, or denying, choose the more neutral verb.
Inference: clues can support a conclusion without becoming direct knowledge
You arrive for a meeting. The room is empty and the calendar invitation has disappeared. Nobody told you the meeting was cancelled.
Compare:
- “The meeting is cancelled.”
- “It looks like the meeting was cancelled.”
- “The meeting may have been cancelled.”
The second and third versions keep the inference visible.
British Council’s modal-verb reference explains that English uses modals to show whether speakers believe something is certain, possible, or impossible. Forms such as may, might, and could can mark possibility.
Do not treat those words as mathematical confidence scores. Context matters, and speakers do not all rank may, might, and could identically. Their practical value here is simpler: they stop a possible explanation from sounding like established fact.
When the evidence is thin, say so
Sometimes you do not even have a strong inference. You have a guess.
- “I think they changed the room, but I haven’t checked.”
- “I’m not sure, but Daniel may be handling it.”
- “I may be wrong, but I thought the booking was for Friday.”
Cambridge Grammar lists forms such as I think, maybe, probably, apparently, and presumably among English hedges—language that can soften or qualify what we say.
Using uncertainty language is not automatically timid or unprofessional. If your evidence is uncertain, the accurate sentence should show that. Certainty inflation—removing every think, might, and source label because the sentence sounds tougher—does not strengthen the information.
Common mistakes: when the grammar and the knowledge claim pull apart
| What the learner says | Classification | What a listener may understand | What the learner likely means | Natural repair |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| “According to me, the meeting is cancelled.” | Unusual/overly formal/non-idiomatic | You are trying to present your own view using a phrase normally used for another source. | “This is my opinion or inference.” | “I think the meeting was cancelled.” Or, for an external source: “According to the calendar, the meeting was cancelled.” |
| “He told that the deadline changed.” | Wrong | The meaning is recoverable, but the verb pattern is incomplete in Standard English. | “He gave me this information.” | “He told me that the deadline changed.” Or: “He said that the deadline changed.” |
| “The meeting is cancelled.” | Context-dependent | You present the cancellation as an unqualified statement. | In the supplied scenario, you only inferred it from an empty room and a missing calendar event. | “It looks like the meeting was cancelled.” |
| “It must be cancelled.” | Context-dependent | You are making a strong deduction. | You believe the clues point toward cancellation. | If the clues are weaker: “It might have been cancelled” or “It looks like it was cancelled.” |
Four source-accurate updates
These are writer-created practice examples, not dialogue from Lioness.
Original practice example
“I saw the courier leave the parcel at reception.”
This sentence stays with direct observation: what the speaker personally saw.
Use this shape when you witnessed the relevant event yourself and do not need to infer what happened afterward.
Source: direct observation. Certainty: direct about the observed action, not about later delivery to the final recipient.
Original practice example
“Lena said the client moved the deadline to Monday.”
The source remains attached. The speaker reports Lena’s statement instead of silently presenting the deadline change as personal knowledge.
Use this shape for updates you received from another person.
Source: another speaker. Certainty: certain about what Lena said; not automatically proof that the new deadline is official.
Original practice example
“The room is empty and the invite is gone, so it looks like the meeting was cancelled.”
The speaker names observable clues, then marks the conclusion as an inference.
Use this when several clues point toward an explanation but nobody has directly confirmed it.
Source: visible clues. Certainty: inference, not direct knowledge.
Original practice example
“I’m not sure, but I think the booking is for Friday.”
The uncertainty is explicit. The sentence does not disguise a weak memory as a confirmed date.
Use this when your source is memory, impression, or another weak basis that still needs checking.
Source: uncertain memory. Certainty: low enough that the listener knows verification is needed.
Source-or-assumption challenge
Choose the best update before opening the answer.
Situation 1: someone else told you
Your colleague Priya tells you the supplier moved the delivery to Tuesday. You have not spoken to the supplier.
- “The supplier moved the delivery to Tuesday.”
- “Priya said the supplier moved the delivery to Tuesday.”
- “It looks like the supplier moved the delivery to Tuesday.”
Show answer
Best: option 2. Your direct knowledge is that Priya gave you the information. Option 1 may later prove true, but in this scenario it hides the source. Option 3 incorrectly presents the update as your inference from clues.
Situation 2: clues, but no confirmation
The meeting room is empty and the event disappeared from your calendar. Nobody has messaged you.
- “The meeting was cancelled.”
- “It looks like the meeting was cancelled.”
- “Sara said the meeting was cancelled.”
Show answer
Best: option 2. You have clues that support an inference. You do not have a direct statement from Sara or another person.
Situation 3: uncertain memory
You vaguely remember that dinner was booked for 8:30, but you have not checked the reservation.
- “Dinner is at 8:30.”
- “According to me, dinner is at 8:30.”
- “I think dinner is at 8:30, but I need to check.”
Show answer
Best: option 3. The wording matches the weak source: your memory. “According to me” is not the natural way to introduce your own opinion or recollection.
One-minute reporting drill
Take three harmless updates from your day. For each one:
- Name the source privately: direct observation, another person/document, clues, or uncertain memory/guess.
- Say one sentence that contains only what that source supports.
- Add or remove certainty language until the sentence matches your actual knowledge.
You do not need to announce “my source is…” in normal conversation every time. The exercise is there to train the logic behind your wording.
Turn precise reporting into spoken habit
Once you can make the distinction on paper, say the updates aloud. The difficult part is often producing the source label and certainty marker quickly enough that you do not fall back into a bare, overconfident statement.
Practise a precise update out loud. This opens a general English speaking-practice path; this exact Lioness topic is not preloaded.
What to notice in fast dialogue
When you watch tense team dialogue, do not only ask, “What information did the speaker give?” Also ask:
- Did they say they saw or heard it themselves?
- Did they attribute it to another person or document?
- Did they use a clue-to-conclusion phrase such as it looks like?
- Did they mark uncertainty with think, may, might, or another hedge?
A confident delivery does not automatically make a statement direct knowledge. For the broader study method, see media-based language learning.
Precision is stronger than certainty inflation
Good reporting English keeps the information source visible. Say what you saw. Attribute what somebody else said. Mark conclusions drawn from clues. Admit when you are guessing.
Before your next update, run one fast check: Where did I get this information, and does my sentence claim more than that source supports?
Do not give a guess a promotion. Give the listener the most accurate version of what you actually know.