Chapter 2

Chapter 2: Critical Thinking - Earning the Right to Make a Recommendation

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

distinguish facts, opinions, inferences, assumptions, and hypotheses;
evaluate the relevance, reliability, sufficiency, and limitations of evidence;
separate symptoms from possible root causes;
distinguish correlation from causation;
identify missing links in an argument;
recognise common logical fallacies and cognitive biases;
generate alternative explanations for the same evidence;
identify evidence that could disprove a preferred conclusion;
express uncertainty without weakening the recommendation;
challenge your team's reasoning before the judges do;
develop recommendations supported by a clear chain of evidence and logic.

Why This Matters

One of the most common comments judges make after a case competition is: "Your recommendation sounded reasonable, but I wasn't convinced." That comment is rarely only about presentation skills. The team may have spoken clearly, designed polished slides, and proposed a creative solution, but the judges could not see a strong enough connection between:

the evidence;
the diagnosis;
the alternatives;
the recommendation.

Many teams gather information. Fewer teams evaluate it. They find that sales have declined and recommend more advertising. They learn that customers are leaving and recommend a loyalty program. They see that an industry is growing and recommend entering the market. The recommendation may eventually prove correct, but the reasoning has not yet earned it. Strong case competitors constantly ask:

How do we know this?
What evidence supports the conclusion?
How reliable is that evidence?
What assumptions are we making?
What else could explain the result?
What evidence contradicts our thinking?
Are we solving the cause or responding to a symptom?
What would have to be true for our recommendation to work?
What would make us change our minds?

Critical thinking transforms information into insight and insight into a defensible recommendation.

Discover Your MAD Skills Principle

Don’t accept information simply because it appears in the case. Ask what it means, why it matters, and whether it should change the decision.

Facts don't interpret themselves. A case may tell you: Sales declined by 18% last year. That information may be accurate, but it doesn't tell you:

why sales declined;
whether the decline affects all products or customers;
whether the problem is demand, price, availability, or competition;
whether the decline is temporary;
what the organisation should do.

Critical thinking creates a disciplined progression: Evidence → Interpretation → Explanation → Strategic implication.

What Critical Thinking Is and Is Not

Critical thinking is the disciplined process of evaluating information and reasoning before accepting a conclusion. It involves:

clarifying the question;
examining evidence;
identifying assumptions;
considering alternatives;
recognising uncertainty;
testing logic;
revising conclusions when better evidence appears.

Critical thinking doesn't mean:

criticising every idea;
automatically disagreeing;
refusing to make a decision;
waiting for perfect information;
finding reasons that nothing will work.

Strong critical thinkers are not permanently sceptical; they are appropriately sceptical. They know when the evidence is strong enough to act and when uncertainty requires:

further research;
a pilot;
a scenario;
a contingency;
a more cautious recommendation.

The objective is not perfect certainty; it is a better decision based on the best available evidence.

Begin with the Question

Before evaluating evidence, clarify the question being answered. A team may believe it is asking, "How should the company increase sales?”, but the more important questions may be:

Why have sales declined?
Which customers, products, or regions account for the decline?
Is revenue the right measure, or is profitability the real concern?
Has customer demand changed?
Can the organisation deliver what it is currently promising?
Should the company attempt to recover the lost sales?

A poorly defined question can produce a well-analysed answer to the wrong problem. Ask:

What decision must be made?
What problem are we trying to explain?
What evidence exists of the problem?
Who defines it as a problem?
What outcome is the organisation trying to achieve?
What is inside and outside the scope?
What would a good answer need to establish?

A strong analytical question focuses the team's evidence and reasoning.

Facts, Opinions, Inferences, Assumptions, and Hypotheses

Case teams often treat all statements as equally certain; they are not.

Facts

Facts are statements supported directly by credible evidence. Examples include:

Revenue declined by 18% last year.
Customer retention fell from 82% to 71%.
The company operates six distribution centres.
The proposed system requires an initial investment of $2 million.

A fact may be accurate but still incomplete or irrelevant. The fact that total sales declined doesn't reveal which products, customers, channels, or causes drove the result.

Opinions

Opinions express a judgement, belief, or preference. Examples include:

The company's customer service is poor.
The new market is attractive.
Customers will prefer the new design.
Management is too conservative.

Opinions may come from informed experts or important stakeholders, but they still require evaluation. Ask:

Whose opinion is this?
What is it based on?
What incentive or bias might exist?
Is it consistent with other evidence?

Inferences

Inferences are conclusions drawn from evidence. For example:

· Fact: Customer complaints increased after delivery times became longer.

· Inference: Delivery delays may be contributing to lower customer satisfaction.

The inference is reasonable, but it is not yet proven. Other factors may also have changed.

Assumptions

Assumptions are statements accepted as true for analysis despite incomplete evidence. Examples include:

Customers will pay a 10% premium.
The company can recruit the required employees.
The partner will meet the proposed service level.
Market growth will continue for five years.
Existing customer behaviour will transfer to a new country.

Assumptions are unavoidable in case competitions. The problem is not making assumptions. The problem is hiding them or presenting them as facts.

Hypotheses

A hypothesis is a possible testable explanation. For example: Customer retention is declining because delivery reliability has worsened. The team can test this hypothesis by examining:

retention by delivery-performance level;
complaint categories;
customer feedback;
timing;
geographic differences;
alternative explanations.

Hypotheses create direction for analysis without pretending the answer is already known.

A Practical Classification

Statement	Classification	What should the team do?
Retention fell from 82% to 71%	Fact	Confirm the source and examine the pattern
Customers are leaving because service is poor	Inference or hypothesis	Test against service and customer evidence
Customers will pay $25 per month	Assumption	Validate through research, testing, or sensitivity analysis
The company has an excellent culture	Opinion	Define "excellent" and seek behavioural evidence
Delivery delays may be causing cancellations	Hypothesis	Compare delivery performance with retention

This classification prevents unsupported statements from becoming the foundation of the recommendation.

The Critical Thinking Chain

A strong argument contains several connected parts.

· 1. Claim

o What are you asking the audience to believe? For example: Delivery unreliability is the primary cause of declining customer retention.

· 2. Evidence

o What acts support the claim? For example:

o on-time delivery declined from 94% to 78%;

o customers experiencing two or more late deliveries retain at a much lower rate;

o and retention remained stable among customers receiving on-time orders.

· 3. Reasoning

o Why does the evidence support the claim? For example, the timing, customer-level relationships, and evidence of complaints suggest that delivery performance, not general dissatisfaction, is strongly associated with cancellation.

o The reasoning connecting evidence to a claim is sometimes called the warrant.

· 4. Assumptions

o What must be true for the reasoning to hold? For example:

o the retention data are accurate;

o no other major change affected the delayed-delivery group;

o and delivery performance is not merely correlated with another service failure.

· 5. Alternative Explanations

o What else could explain the evidence? For example:

o affected customers may live in regions with weaker service generally;

o prices may have increased in the same period;

o product quality may also have declined;

o or new competitors may be targeting the same customers.

· 6. Strategic Implication

o What does the conclusion mean for the decision?

o For example: The organisation should address forecasting, fulfilment, and delivery reliability before investing heavily in a loyalty program.

The complete chain is: Claim → Evidence → Reasoning → Assumptions → Alternatives → Strategic Implication. If one link is weak, the argument becomes vulnerable.

The MAD Skills Evidence Test

Use four tests when evaluating evidence.

1. Relevance

Does the evidence directly help answer the question? A market-growth statistic may be accurate but irrelevant if the organisation cannot serve the market profitably. Ask:

Which claim does this evidence support?
Is the evidence about the correct customer, product, geography, and period?
Does it affect the decision?
Would the conclusion change without it?

2. Reliability

Can the evidence be trusted? Ask:

What is the source?
How was the information collected?
Is the source independent?
Does the source possess relevant expertise?
Could the source benefit from a particular conclusion?
Is the method transparent?
Is the sample appropriate?
Can the evidence be verified?

A statement from a company executive may be valuable, but the executive may possess incomplete information or a strong incentive to present the organisation favourably.

3. Sufficiency

Is there enough evidence to support a strong conclusion? One customer complaint doesn't prove widespread dissatisfaction. A survey of 25 highly engaged customers may not represent the broader market. Ask:

Is the sample large and representative enough?
Do multiple sources support the conclusion?
Is the evidence consistent?
Are we generalising too far?
Does the confidence of our language match the strength of the evidence?

4. Currency and Context

Is the evidence recent and applicable to the current situation? Ask:

When was the evidence collected?
What has changed since then?
Does it apply to this market, customer, or organisation?
Was the evidence produced under unusual circumstances?
Are we applying a historical pattern to a different future?

Evidence from another industry or country can inform the analysis without proving that the same outcome will occur.

Evidence Quality Is Not Binary

Evidence is rarely simply "good" or "bad." It may be:

highly reliable but only partly relevant;
relevant but based on a small sample;
current but produced by an interested party;
comprehensive but outdated;
useful as directional evidence rather than proof.

Teams should calibrate the strength of the conclusion to the quality of the evidence. Compare: Customers will pay a 20% premium. with: Interviews suggest that some high-value customers may be willing to pay a premium for guaranteed delivery, but the exact willingness to pay should be tested through a pricing pilot. The second statement is more precise and credible because it acknowledges what the evidence can and cannot establish.

Description, Diagnosis, and Explanation

Teams often describe a problem and believe they have analysed it. There are three different levels.

· Description: What Is Happening? Customer retention declined by 11 percentage points.

· Diagnosis: Where Is It Happening? Most of the decline comes from first-year customers in two regions.

· Explanation: Why Is It Happening? Those regions experienced the largest increase in delivery delays, and delivery-related complaints rose immediately before cancellations.

The recommendation should respond to the explanation, not merely the description. The claim that "Retention is declining" doesn't automatically support a loyalty program. The team must understand:

which customers are leaving;
why they are leaving;
whether the proposed solution addresses that cause.

Symptoms Versus Root Causes

A symptom is the visible evidence of a problem. A root cause is an underlying factor that produces or contributes to the symptom. For example, declining profits may be a symptom. Possible causes include:

reduced sales volume;
lower price;
unfavourable product mix;
rising input costs;
inefficient operations;
increased customer-acquisition cost;
excess capacity;
supplier power.

Similarly: High employee turnover may be a symptom. Possible causes include:

poor management;
inadequate compensation;
limited development;
unsustainable workload;
weak hiring fit;
changing labour-market conditions.

A useful questioning sequence is:

What is happening?
Where is it happening?
When did it begin?
What changed before it began?
Which groups are affected?
Which groups are not affected?
What factors move with the problem?
What process could create the observed outcome?
What evidence would confirm the cause?
What evidence would disprove it?

Don't stop at the first plausible cause.

Correlation Is Not Causation

Two factors moving together doesn't prove that one caused the other. Suppose: advertising spending declined, and sales declined. It may appear that lower advertising caused the sales decline, but several possibilities exist:

the advertising reduction caused lower sales;
management reduced advertising because sales were already declining;
a third factor affected both;
the timing is coincidental.

To strengthen a causal claim, look for:

· Timing: Did the possible cause occur before the effect?

· Mechanism: Can you explain how the cause would produce the effect?

· Pattern: Does the relationship appear across customers, locations, products, or periods?

· Comparison: Did groups exposed to the possible cause perform differently from groups that were not?

· Alternative Explanations: Have other plausible causes been investigated?

Strength and Consistency

Is the relationship meaningful and supported by multiple forms of evidence? In competition cases, complete causal proof may be impossible. The team should still distinguish between:

a confirmed cause;
a strongly supported explanation;
a plausible hypothesis;
an untested assumption.

Look for Disconfirming Evidence

Teams naturally search for evidence supporting the idea they prefer. Critical thinkers deliberately ask what evidence would show that we are wrong? If the team believes price is causing customer churn, examine:

customers who stayed despite the price increase;
customers who left before the increase;
competitor pricing;
service complaints;
product usage;
churn across different customer groups.

Disconfirming evidence can:

weaken the original hypothesis;
reveal important customer differences;
identify a stronger explanation;
improve the recommendation.

The objective is not to destroy every idea. It is to prevent the team from protecting a weak conclusion simply because it arrived first.

Consider Alternative Explanations

For every important conclusion, generate at least two alternative explanations. Suppose employee productivity has declined. Possible explanations include:

weak motivation;
outdated technology;
insufficient training;
unclear processes;
increased product complexity;
poor scheduling;
staffing shortages;
a change in how productivity is measured.

Then ask:

Which explanation best fits the evidence?
Which explanations can be ruled out?
Could several factors be interacting?
What additional information would distinguish among them?

This process protects the team from premature closure, the tendency to stop searching once a plausible answer appears.

Logical Fallacies in Case Analysis

Logical fallacies are recurring errors in reasoning.

False Cause

· Assuming that because one event followed another, the first event caused the second.

· Sales declined after the rebrand, so the rebrand caused the decline.

· Challenge it: What else changed at the same time?

False Dilemma

· Presenting only two options when more possibilities exist.

· The company must either expand internationally or accept stagnant growth.

· Challenge it: Could the organisation grow through new products, channels, segments, partnerships, or improved retention?

Hasty Generalisation

· Drawing a broad conclusion from limited evidence.

· Three customers disliked the application; the market will reject it.

· Challenge it: Is the evidence representative?

Appeal to Popularity

· Assuming an idea is correct because many organisations are doing it.

· Every competitor is using AI, so the company should too.

· Challenge it: What problem will the technology solve, and does the organisation have the capability to use it?

Appeal to Authority

· Accepting a conclusion only because an influential person stated it.

· The CEO believes international expansion is essential, so it must be the best strategy.

· Challenge it: What evidence supports the CEO's view?

Circular Reasoning

· Using the conclusion as evidence for itself.

· The brand is strong because customers see it as such.

· Challenge it: What observable evidence demonstrates brand strength?

Sunk-Cost Fallacy

· Continuing an initiative because significant resources have already been invested.

· The company has spent $5 million on the platform, so it must complete it.

· Challenge it: What option creates the greatest value from this point forward?

Slippery Slope

· Assuming one action will inevitably trigger an extreme chain of consequences.

· Allowing flexible work will eventually eliminate collaboration.

· Challenge it: What evidence supports each step in the chain?

False Analogy

· Assuming that because two situations share some features, the same strategy will work in both.

· A subscription worked for a competitor; it will work for this company as well.

· Challenge it: Are the customers, value propositions, costs, usage patterns, and capabilities truly comparable?

Survivorship Bias

· Studying only successful examples while ignoring failures.

· Several leading companies expanded through acquisitions, so acquisition is the best growth strategy.

· Challenge it: How many acquisitions failed, and under what conditions?

Cognitive Biases in Case Teams

Biases are predictable tendencies that can distort judgement.

Confirmation Bias

· Searching for evidence that supports the preferred solution and ignoring contradictory evidence.

· Countermeasure: Assign someone to make the strongest case against the recommendation.

Anchoring

· Allowing the first number, diagnosis, or idea to influence later thinking too strongly.

· Countermeasure: Generate independent estimates or explanations before discussing them.

Availability Bias

· Giving excessive weight to information that is recent, memorable, or easy to recall.

· Countermeasure: Return to the complete evidence rather than relying on the most vivid example.

Groupthink

· Avoiding disagreement to preserve harmony.

· Countermeasure: Ask each team member to identify one concern before reaching consensus.

Overconfidence

· Expressing more certainty than the evidence supports.

· Countermeasure: State confidence levels and identify what could change the conclusion.

Status Quo Bias

· Preferring the current approach simply because it is familiar.

· Countermeasure: Evaluate the cost and risk of doing nothing alongside the proposed alternatives.

Solution Fixation

· Becoming attached to an idea before understanding the problem.

· Countermeasure: Require a clear problem statement and root-cause hypothesis before developing solutions.

Escalation of Commitment

· Continuing to support an idea because the team has already invested time in it.

· Countermeasure: Reassess alternatives at defined decision points.

Authority Bias

· Allowing the most senior, experienced, or confident teammate to dominate.

· Countermeasure: Gather initial views independently and evaluate the evidence, not the speaker.

False Certainty

· Presenting estimates or assumptions as proven facts.

· Countermeasure: Clearly label facts, assumptions, ranges, and scenarios.

Deciphering Case Characteristics

Critical thinking looks different depending on the case type.

Turnaround Case

The team must distinguish symptoms from root causes. Ask:

What changed?
Which products, customers, or operations drive the decline?
Is the problem temporary or structural?
Which problems are causes and which are consequences?
What must be stabilised first?

Growth Case

The team should question whether growth is attractive and achievable. Ask:

Which type of growth?
Which customers and markets?
Is the growth profitable?
What capabilities are required?
What does growth do to cash flow and organisational capacity?
Is growth the correct objective?

Innovation Case

The team may be evaluating uncertainty rather than proving certainty. Ask:

Is the customer problem real?
What assumption creates the greatest risk?
What evidence is available?
What should be tested first?
Can the organisation learn through a pilot?

The team must evaluate both mission and financial sustainability. sk:

What outcome is being created?
For whom?
How will impact be measured?
Who pays?
Who benefits?
Are financial and social objectives in tension?
What trade-offs are acceptable?

Organisational Change Case

The team must understand behaviour, capability, and implementation. ask:

Who must behave differently?
What prevents the desired behaviour today?
Do systems and incentives support the change?
Is leadership aligned?
What evidence suggests employees will adopt it?

Market-Entry Case

The team must test both external attractiveness and organisational fit. sk:

Is the market genuinely attractive?
Which segment should be served?
Why will customers choose the organisation?
What capabilities are required?
What assumptions are being transferred from the current market?
What could make entry fail?

The questions should reflect the nature of the decision.

The Four-Question Mad Skills Framework

When evaluating information, ask four questions.

1. What Do We Know?

Identify the facts. Ask:

What is directly supported?
What is the source?
How reliable and relevant is it?
What patterns appear?

2. What Do We Think?

Identify:

inferences;
interpretations;
assumptions;
preferred explanations.

Ask:

Why do we believe this?
What reasoning connects the evidence to the conclusion?
Are we presenting an interpretation as a fact?

3. What Don't We Know?

Identify:

missing data;
uncertainty;
conflicting evidence;
untested assumptions;
possible alternative explanations.

Ask:

Which missing information could change the recommendation?
Where are we least confident?
What risk does that uncertainty create?

4. What Do We Need to Learn?

Prioritise the information that would most improve the decision. Ask:

What can we investigate within the competition?
What calculation can we perform?
What assumption should be tested through sensitivity analysis?
What should the organisation test during implementation?
Which uncertainty requires a pilot or contingency?

This framework prevents teams from moving too quickly from information to recommendation.

Challenging the Recommendation

Before finalising the solution, stress test the recommendation.

· The Evidence Question: What evidence makes us believe this is the best option?

· The Assumption Question: Which assumptions must be true?

· The Alternative Question: What other explanation or solution could fit the evidence?

· The Contradiction Question: What evidence doesn't fit our conclusion?

· The Feasibility Question: Does the organisation possess the capabilities, resources, and time required?

· The Financial Question: Do the economics remain attractive under less favourable assumptions?

· The Stakeholder Question: Who might resist, be harmed, or prevent implementation?

· The Risk Question: What could cause the recommendation to fail?

· The Change-Our-Mind Question: What evidence would cause us to revise or abandon the recommendation?

A recommendation that survives these questions is more likely to survive Q&A.

Expressing Uncertainty Credibly

Critical thinking doesn't require the team to eliminate all uncertainty. Judges understand that case competitors work with limited information. Credibility comes from showing that the team:

recognises uncertainty;
understands why it matters;
tests important assumptions;
plans for different outcomes;
doesn't overstate the evidence.

Instead of saying: The strategy will increase retention by 15%. Say: Based on the improvement observed among customers currently receiving reliable delivery, we estimate an 8% to 15% increase in retention. We recommend testing the effect during a three-month pilot before scaling. This doesn't weaken the recommendation. It shows disciplined judgement.

A Competition Example

Imagine a company whose customer retention has declined from 82% to 71%. One team immediately recommends a loyalty program. It reasons that customers are leaving, so the company should reward them for staying. A second team asks:

Which customers are leaving?
When did the decline begin?
Which products, regions, and channels are affected?
What changed before the decline?
What reasons do customers give?
Are high-value customers leaving?
Is retention the central problem or a symptom?
What evidence would support a loyalty solution?

The team finds:

most churn comes from customers in their first three months;
established customers remain relatively loyal;
cancellations increased immediately after delivery performance declined;
delivery-related complaints doubled;
customers experiencing repeated delays are three times more likely to cancel.

The team develops several hypotheses:

customers don't receive enough rewards;
customers don't understand the product;
delivery unreliability is damaging the experience; or
a competitor is attracting price-sensitive customers.

The evidence most strongly supports the third explanation. The recommendation changes from "Launch a loyalty program." to improve early-customer retention by correcting the forecasting and fulfilment problems causing repeated delivery delays. Introduce proactive delivery communication and a recovery offer for affected customers. Test a loyalty program only after the core experience becomes reliable. The second recommendation is stronger because it addresses the likely cause rather than the visible symptom.

Winning the Room: Presenting Critical Thinking

Critical thinking should be visible in the presentation's logic, not presented as a separate framework. The judges should be able to follow: What happened → Why it happened → What evidence supports the explanation → What the organisation should do.

Lead with the Diagnosis

Instead of: Customer retention is declining. Say: Retention is declining primarily among first-quarter customers experiencing repeated delivery delays.

Show the Evidence

Use only the evidence needed to establish the conclusion. For example:

timing of the decline;
churn by customer group;
delivery performance;
and complaint data.

Explain the Logic

State why the evidence supports the diagnosis: Retention remained stable among customers receiving reliable delivery, suggesting that fulfilment, not the overall value proposition, is the primary issue.

Acknowledge Important Uncertainty

For example: Competitor activity may also contribute, but the customer-level relationship makes delivery reliability the most actionable and strongly supported cause.

Connect the Diagnosis to the Recommendation

Complete the chain: We therefore prioritise improvements in forecasting and fulfilment before investing in a broad loyalty initiative. The argument becomes judge-friendly because the recommendation follows from the evidence.

Coach's Lens

One habit separates exceptional teams from average teams. Average teams ask, "What should we recommend?" Exceptional teams ask What problem are we actually trying to solve. Those questions sound similar. They are not. The first can trigger solution fixation. The second forces the team to:

define the problem;
test the evidence;
identify the cause;
earn the recommendation.

Before approving a team's recommendation, I often ask what I would have to believe for this recommendation to be wrong. If the team cannot answer, it probably has not challenged its thinking deeply enough. The best teams don't wait for judges to expose the weakness. They ask the difficult questions first.

Common Mistakes

· Treating Case Information as Complete Truth. The case contains selected facts, perspectives, and limitations. Evaluate what the information establishes and what remains unknown.

· Confusing Facts with Interpretations: Teams present conclusions as if they were stated directly. Label facts, inferences, assumptions, and hypotheses.

· Jumping from Symptom to Solution: A visible problem triggers an immediate recommendation. Identify the likely cause before designing the response.

· Accepting the First Explanation: The first plausible hypothesis becomes the answer. Generate and test alternative explanations.

· Searching Only for Supporting Evidence: Teams protect the solution they already prefer. Look deliberately for contradictory or disconfirming evidence.

· Confusing Correlation with Causation: Two factors move together, so the team assumes one caused the other. Examine the timing, mechanism, pattern, comparison, and alternatives.

· Relying on One Data Point: One statistic or quotation carries too much weight. Triangulate using multiple sources or forms of evidence.

· Generalising from a Weak Sample: Limited evidence is applied to an entire market or customer base. Examine representativeness and use appropriately cautious language.

· Ignoring Source Incentives: Information is accepted without considering who produced it and why. Evaluate expertise, independence, methods, and potential bias.

· Treating Assumptions as Facts: Estimates are presented with false precision. Label assumptions and use ranges, scenarios, or sensitivity analysis.

· Overanalysing Minor Uncertainty: Teams spend too much time resolving questions that will change the decision; prioritise uncertainties based on their impact on the recommendation.

· Refusing to Decide Without Perfect Information. Analysis becomes an excuse for indecision. Make the best available evidence-based decision and manage the remaining uncertainty.

· Allowing One Voice to Dominate: Confidence is mistaken for evidence. Seek independent perspectives and evaluate the reasoning behind each position.

· Failing to Revisit the Problem: The team continues to solve the problem based on its initial interpretation even after new evidence appears.

· Reassess the problem statement at key points throughout the case.

MAD Skills Drill

Select a recent business article, case, or organisational announcement.

Step 1: Define the Central Claim

What is the author or organisation asking you to believe?

Step 2: Classify the Statements

Identify:

five facts;
three inferences;
three assumptions;
two opinions; and
one hypothesis.

Step 3: Test the Evidence

For each major piece of evidence, assess:

relevance;
reliability;
sufficiency;
currency; and
context.

Step 4: Identify the Reasoning

Explain how the evidence supports the conclusion. Is the logical connection strong?

Step 5: Generate Alternatives

Identify two other explanations that could fit the same evidence.

Step 6: Find Contradictory Evidence

What information would weaken or disprove the conclusion? Does the article address it?

Step 7: Identify What Is Missing

List the two unanswered questions that would most improve your confidence.

Step 8: Calibrate the Conclusion

Classify the conclusion as:

strongly supported;
reasonably supported;
plausible but uncertain; or
unsupported.

Explain your assessment.

Step 9: Discuss as a Team

Compare classifications with your teammates. Ask:

Which statements did you classify differently?
Which assumptions did others notice?
Did everyone interpret the same evidence in the same way?
What caused the differences?

The disagreement is part of the learning.

Team Critical-Thinking Routine

Use this ten-minute routine before finalising your recommendation.

· Minute 1–2: Restate the Problem: Write the problem and decision in one sentence each.

· Minute 3–4: Identify the Evidence: List the three strongest pieces of evidence supporting the diagnosis.

· Minute 5: Identify the Assumptions: List the three assumptions most important to the recommendation.

· Minute 6: Generate an Alternative Explanation: Identify the strongest competing diagnosis.

· Minute 7: Find Contradictory Evidence: Identify one fact that doesn't fit the preferred conclusion.

· Minute 8: Stress-Test the Economics: Identify the assumption with the greatest financial effect.

· Minute 9: Challenge Implementation: Identify the stakeholder, capability, or risk most likely to cause failure.

· Minute 10: Decide: Confirm, revise, phase, pilot, or reject the recommendation.

This short routine can reveal weaknesses before the judges do.

Reflection Questions

What assumption did your team make most often in its last case?
Did you identify it as an assumption?
What evidence supported it?
What evidence might have contradicted it?
Did the team confuse a symptom with a cause?
Which teammate challenged the group's preferred conclusion?
Did everyone have space to disagree?
What information would have changed the recommendation?
Did the team communicate uncertainty honestly?
How might stronger critical thinking have changed the solution or implementation?

Chapter Summary

Critical thinking is not about finding flaws for the sake of criticism. It is about improving decisions. Strong critical thinking follows this progression: Claim → Evidence → Reasoning → Assumptions → Alternative Explanations → Confidence → Strategic Implication.

Facts describe what is known. Inferences interpret those facts. Assumptions fill gaps. Hypotheses create testable explanations. The strongest case teams evaluate:

the relevance of the evidence;
the reliability of the source;
the sufficiency of support;
the currency and context;
the logic connecting evidence to conclusion;
the alternative explanations that could also fit.

They distinguish symptoms from causes, correlation from causation, and confidence from certainty. A weak team waits for the judges to challenge its reasoning. A strong team asks the difficult questions first. Every recommendation should survive one central question: What evidence makes us believe this is the best course of action?

Key Takeaways

✓ Critical thinking is the disciplined evaluation of information, reasoning, assumptions, and conclusions.

✓ Begin by clarifying the decision and the question being answered.

✓ Distinguish facts, opinions, inferences, assumptions, and hypotheses.

✓ Evaluate evidence for relevance, reliability, sufficiency, currency, and context.

✓ Match the confidence of the conclusion to the strength of the evidence.

✓ Description explains what is happening; diagnosis identifies where it is happening; explanation examines why it is happening.

✓ Don't move from symptom to solution without investigating the root cause.

✓ Correlation doesn't automatically establish causation.

✓ Examine timing, mechanism, patterns, comparisons, and alternative explanations before making a causal claim.

✓ Generate competing explanations for important evidence.

✓ Search deliberately for evidence that contradicts the preferred conclusion.

✓ Recognise common fallacies such as false cause, false dilemmas, hasty generalisation, sunk-cost reasoning, and false analogies.

✓ Manage biases such as confirmation bias, anchoring, groupthink, overconfidence, solution fixation, and authority bias.

✓ Label uncertainty rather than hiding it.

✓ Use ranges, sensitivity analysis, pilots, scenarios, and contingencies when important uncertainty remains.

✓ Challenge the recommendation before the judges do.

✓ Critical thinking should be visible through the presentation's analytical logic, not as a separate slide.

✓ The strongest recommendations are not merely reasonable. They are earned through evidence and disciplined reasoning.

Looking Ahead

Critical thinking helps case solvers evaluate evidence, challenge assumptions, and determine what they can reasonably conclude. The next chapter introduces Strategic Thinking, the ability to see the organisation as a connected system, understand how decisions create consequences across that system, and choose actions that build long-term advantage rather than merely address immediate symptoms.