What exactly does the speaker conclude?
FNEGE describes Critical Reasoning as analyzing everyday situations and arguments. The distinctions proposed here are our teaching framework, not an official list of question categories. No specialized knowledge of the scenarios is required.
First separate the observed data from the conclusion. “Users of the service report fewer delays” describes an association. “The service reduces delays” interprets it as causal. That inference may be reasonable, but it requires evidence beyond the association itself.
Look for three possibilities: an initial difference between the groups, an outside factor affecting both variables, or causation in the reverse direction. You do not have to claim that the alternative explanation is true. A weaken question may ask only which information makes the conclusion less secure.
| Structure | Check question |
|---|---|
| A leads to B | Does A precede B, and what mechanism is proposed? |
| C influences A and B | Did the groups already differ in C? |
| B influences A | Could the direction of the effect be reversed? |
Who chooses to use the service?
People who choose to participate may differ even before the activity begins.
Les étudiants qui utilisent une application de planification rendent plus souvent leurs dossiers à temps. On conclut que l’application améliore la ponctualité. Quelle information affaiblit le plus cette conclusion ?
Choose an answer.
The solution, step by step
Users were already more punctual before adopting it.
The method in action
- An initial difference may explain at least part of the observed gap. The app may attract students who are already organized, so the association does not directly measure its effect.
- This does not prove that the app is useless. It may also help, but the argument given does not isolate that contribution.
- The other choices describe features with no established connection to punctuality. They do not address the key inference from observation to cause.
What else changed at the same time?
Chronological order is necessary for many causal explanations, but sequence alone is not enough to isolate an effect.
Après l’installation de fauteuils neufs, la fréquentation d’une bibliothèque augmente. La direction attribue la hausse aux fauteuils. Quelle information fournit l’explication concurrente la plus directe ?
Choose an answer.
The solution, step by step
The tram line opened at the same time.
The method in action
- The new access route may increase attendance regardless of the furniture. Given two simultaneous changes, the information presented does not let us attribute the entire increase to the chairs.
- The other facts do not describe a change that could explain the increase at that time.
- To learn more, one could compare periods or locations that help distinguish the effects. This exercise neither quantifies nor rules out an effect from the furniture.
The pitfall
Demanding absolute proof in a strengthen question
Information can strengthen a hypothesis without proving it. If the prompt asks what best supports the conclusion, compare how each choice affects the argument instead of rejecting every choice that leaves some uncertainty. Conversely, information that is merely consistent with the conclusion may add no support.
Also consider the scope of the observation. An effect in one context does not justify claims such as “always,” “everywhere,” or “for everyone.” Choose an answer whose strength matches the available information.
Which comparison makes the explanation more credible?
A comparison that reduces other differences between the groups is more useful than a general opinion about the measure.
Un centre affirme que ses SMS de rappel réduisent les rendez-vous oubliés. Quel résultat renforce le mieux cette hypothèse ?
Choose an answer.
The solution, step by step
A randomized comparison in which the reminder group missed fewer appointments.
The method in action
- The comparison directly targets the reminder’s effect and reduces the risk that the groups differed systematically at the outset.
- It strengthens the conclusion in the context studied without promising the same effect across all populations or ways of wording the message.
- The other choices describe the center or message without showing a difference in missed appointments attributable to the reminder.
Key takeaways
- Separate observed association from causal interpretation.
- Look for initial differences and competing changes.
- Strengthening or weakening does not mean definitively proving or disproving.