Mettl Critical Thinking 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: An advertisement claims: '9 out of 10 dentists recommend Brand X toothpaste.' What is the most important question to ask before accepting this claim?
- What flavor is Brand X?
- How many dentists were surveyed and how were they selected? (Correct answer)
- Who made the toothpaste?
- Is Brand X expensive?
Correct answer: How many dentists were surveyed and how were they selected?
The key critical thinking question is about sample size and selection — a survey of just 10 dentists (with 9 choosing Brand X) is statistically meaningless.
Critical evaluation of statistics involves asking: Sample size (10 vs 10,000 dentists?), Selection method (random vs cherry-picked?), Survey design (did they have to choose one? were brands labeled?), Conflict of interest (was the survey funded by Brand X?), Definition of 'recommend' (primary recommendation or just acceptable?). This example demonstrates how statistically weak claims can sound impressive. Mettl critical thinking assessments specifically test your ability to identify weak evidence, sampling bias, and logical gaps in arguments.
Question 2: A manager concludes: 'Our customer satisfaction scores rose after we changed the packaging. Therefore, the new packaging caused the improvement.' What logical fallacy is this?
- Straw man fallacy
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation as causation) (Correct answer)
- Ad hominem fallacy
- Appeal to authority
Correct answer: Post hoc ergo propter hoc (correlation as causation)
Post hoc ergo propter hoc ('after this, therefore because of this') incorrectly assumes that because B followed A, A caused B. Other factors may have caused the improvement.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is one of the most common logical fallacies in business decision-making. The error: Event A (new packaging) → Event B (higher scores). Assumption: A caused B. Reality: Other factors may explain B: a competitor's product recall, seasonal effects, improved customer service, sampling bias in the survey. Correct analysis requires: controlled experiments, ruling out confounds, statistical significance testing. Mettl critical thinking tests present these business scenarios to assess candidates' ability to distinguish correlation from causation — essential for data-driven roles.
Question 3: You are reviewing a project proposal. The author has extensive credentials but the methodology has clear flaws. How should you evaluate the proposal?
- Accept it based on the author's credentials
- Reject it based on the methodology flaws regardless of credentials
- Evaluate the methodology on its merits, separate from the author's credentials (Correct answer)
- Ask someone else to evaluate it
Correct answer: Evaluate the methodology on its merits, separate from the author's credentials
Critical thinking requires evaluating arguments on their merits, not the authority of the source. This avoids 'appeal to authority' bias.
The Appeal to Authority fallacy: accepting a claim because an expert says so, without evaluating the evidence. Critical thinking principle: Evaluate the argument, not the arguer. Process: (1) Identify the methodology flaws specifically, (2) Assess their severity and impact on conclusions, (3) Consider whether flaws are fixable or fundamental, (4) Make a recommendation based on merit. Expert credentials are relevant context but not a substitute for sound methodology. Mettl critical thinking assessments use business scenario analysis to test this exact skill — avoiding bias and evaluating evidence objectively.
Question 4: A study finds that employees who drink coffee are more productive. A company therefore decides to provide free coffee to boost productivity. What is the critical flaw in this reasoning?
- Coffee is expensive
- Correlation between coffee drinking and productivity doesn't establish that coffee causes productivity (Correct answer)
- The company should ask employees before deciding
- Productivity can't be measured
Correct answer: Correlation between coffee drinking and productivity doesn't establish that coffee causes productivity
Correlation does not imply causation. Coffee drinkers may be more productive for other reasons (e.g., they work longer hours, have different roles, etc.).
Causation vs. correlation is a fundamental critical thinking concept. The study shows a correlation (coffee drinking and productivity occur together). But: more productive employees may simply drink more coffee to sustain longer hours, or a third variable (like role type) explains both. To establish causation, you need: randomized controlled experiment, ruling out confounding variables, consistent results across multiple studies, plausible mechanism. Business decisions based on correlation without causation can waste resources or worse. Mettl tests this reasoning pattern extensively in analytical and management role assessments.
Question 5: Which question best exemplifies higher-order critical thinking (as per Bloom's Taxonomy)?
- What is the capital of France?
- When was the policy implemented?
- How would you redesign this process to eliminate the identified inefficiency? (Correct answer)
- Who wrote the report?
Correct answer: How would you redesign this process to eliminate the identified inefficiency?
Bloom's higher-order thinking involves analysis, evaluation, and creation. 'Redesigning a process' requires synthesis, evaluation, and creation — the top levels.
Bloom's Taxonomy levels (lower to higher): (1) Remember: recall facts (What is the capital?), (2) Understand: explain concepts, (3) Apply: use knowledge in new situations, (4) Analyze: break down and examine (Why did this fail?), (5) Evaluate: judge and critique (Is this the best approach?), (6) Create: design/generate new solutions (How would you redesign this?). The 'redesign' question requires analysis of current problems + evaluation of alternatives + creation of new solutions — clearly level 5-6. Mettl critical thinking tests assess these higher-order skills, distinguishing candidates who think analytically from those who only recall facts.
Question 6: A report presents two options: Option A saves 200 lives, Option B has a 1/3 probability of saving all 600 lives and 2/3 probability of saving no one. Most people choose Option A. This is an example of:
- Risk-seeking behavior
- Framing effect / risk aversion in gains (Correct answer)
- Overconfidence bias
- Availability heuristic
Correct answer: Framing effect / risk aversion in gains
Both options have equal expected value (200 lives). People prefer the certain outcome (Option A) over the risky one in the gain frame — demonstrating risk aversion and the framing effect (Kahneman & Tversky).
This is the famous Kahneman & Tversky (1981) framing effect experiment. Expected value: Option A = 200 lives. Option B = (1/3 × 600) + (2/3 × 0) = 200 lives. Both equal! Yet most choose A because it's certain. This reveals: (1) Framing effect: how choices are presented influences decisions. (2) Risk aversion in gains: when outcomes are framed as gains, we prefer certainty. (3) Loss frame reversal: when the same scenario is framed as deaths (lose 400 vs risk losing all), people reverse preferences and become risk-seeking. Critical thinking requires recognizing when framing (not logic) is driving decisions. Mettl critical reasoning tests assess this cognitive bias awareness.
Mettl Critical Thinking 2
An advertisement claims: '9 out of 10 dentists recommend Brand X toothpaste.' What is the most important question to ask before accepting this claim?