Use this bank to probe how candidates form judgments: how they frame problems, test assumptions, weigh evidence, and communicate sound conclusions. Each section includes prompts and cues for strong answers.

Foundations & Definitions

• What does “critical thinking” mean in your work?
  Good answers: Structured reasoning, evidence-based, awareness of uncertainty and bias; distinct from mere debating.
• Share an example where critical thinking changed the outcome.
  Good answers: Clear before/after, reasoning steps, decision, and measurable impact.
• How do you balance intuition with analysis?
  Good answers: Uses intuition to generate hypotheses, validates with data, knows limits.
• What’s your standard for a “good enough” answer?
  Good answers: Decision deadlines, reversibility, cost of delay, and risk considerations.

Problem Framing & Decomposition

• How do you reframe a poorly defined problem?
  Good answers: Clarify objective, constraints, stakeholders, success metrics; propose scope and acceptance criteria.
• Walk me through your decomposition approach.
  Good answers: Breaks into mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive parts; identifies biggest unknowns first.
• Tell me about a time you stopped a team from solving the wrong problem.
  Good answers: Lightweight validation, restated problem, aligned decision.
• What assumptions were embedded in the original ask?
  Good answers: Surfaces hidden constraints and tests them explicitly.

Evidence & Analysis

• How do you judge whether evidence is trustworthy?
  Good answers: Source credibility, sampling, definitions, reproducibility, triangulation.
• A time you changed course because the data disagreed.
  Good answers: Resisted confirmation bias, sought disconfirming facts, updated plan.
• What’s your approach when data is messy or missing?
  Good answers: Proxy metrics, sensitivity ranges, fast experiments, and caveats.
• How do you detect Goodharted or gamed metrics?
  Good answers: Guardrails, paired metrics, qualitative checks, and incentives review.

Logic, Inference & Argument

• Explain a conclusion you reached. What were the premises?
  Good answers: Clear chain: premises → reasoning → conclusion; states confidence and limitations.
• Spot the fallacy: give an example you’ve seen at work and how you handled it.
  Good answers: Identifies common fallacies (post hoc, strawman, ad hominem) and replaces with valid structure.
• How do you compare competing hypotheses?
  Good answers: Decision table, expected value, Bayes-like updating, pre-registered criteria.
• When do you withhold judgment?
  Good answers: High irreversibility, low info; sets evidence threshold and timeline.

Biases & Perspective Taking

• Which cognitive biases affect you most, and how do you counter them?
  Good answers: Names personal patterns (confirmation, anchoring, sunk cost) and practices to mitigate (red-team, base rates).
• How do you steelman an opposing view?
  Good answers: Restates the best version fairly, identifies shared goals, proposes tests.
• Describe a time stakeholder incentives changed your analysis.
  Good answers: Maps incentives, adjusts for bias, chooses robust option.
• What do you do when experts disagree?
  Good answers: Compare track records, assumptions, and predictive claims; consider diversification or reversible tests.

Synthesis & Judgment

• How do you turn conflicting inputs into a decision?
  Good answers: Frames options, trade-offs, risks, and recommends with rationale and contingencies.
• Tell me about a decision you’re proud of—what made it high quality?
  Good answers: Clear objective, alternatives considered, sensitivity, stakeholder alignment, measured outcome.
• What’s your escalation philosophy?
  Good answers: Defined thresholds, single owner, time-bound calls.
• How do you create “option value” in decisions?
  Good answers: Stage gates, small bets, reversible moves, information gathering.

Ethics & Risk

• A time the “right” business outcome conflicted with values.
  Good answers: Ethical framing, stakeholders impacted, principled stance, and alternative path.
• How do you reason about risks you can’t quantify well?
  Good answers: Precautionary principle, scenario ranges, qualitative scales, triggers.
• What red lines do you keep in analysis?
  Good answers: Privacy, safety, equity; consults policy/legal early.
• When do you slow down on purpose?
  Good answers: Irreversible or ethical stakes; insists on independent review.

Communication of Reasoning

• How do you present an argument to busy execs?
  Good answers: BLUF, options with trade-offs, risks, and clear ask; one-page memo or 5-slide deck.
• Show your decision log format.
  Good answers: Problem, options, chosen path, assumptions, owners, date, review point.
• How do you invite dissent without derailing?
  Good answers: Pre-reads, structured Q&A, parking lot, and commit post-decision.
• What changed after feedback on your reasoning?
  Good answers: Concrete example, improved outcome, and acknowledgment of contributors.

Second-Order Effects & Systems Thinking

• Share a time a “fix” caused a new problem. What did you learn?
  Good answers: Feedback loops, unintended consequences, redesigned policy/process.
• How do you check for second-order effects?
  Good answers: Causal maps, pilot tests, guardrail metrics, and post-launch review.
• When is doing nothing the strategic choice?
  Good answers: Option value, information arrival, and cost of irreversibility.
• How do you design for robustness, not just optimization?
  Good answers: Slack in systems, diversification, fail-safes.

Case Study Exercises

• Ambiguous brief: Clarify a vague ask into a testable problem with acceptance criteria.
• Conflicting metrics: Two dashboards disagree; diagnose and decide which to trust.
• Pricing change: Evaluate options A/B/C; present recommendation with sensitivity analysis.
• Risk trade-off: Choose between a fast but risky launch vs. delay; justify with scenarios.
• Postmortem: Lead a blameless review of a failed initiative; produce action plan.

Tip: Look for explicit assumptions, falsification mindset, structured comparisons, and clear communication. Strong critical thinkers show their work and change their minds with evidence.