Question before concluding

How can you assess information and defend a point of view without turning an assumption into a certainty?

1250 € per session, excl. VAT

In short

This half-day session of 3 hours raises awareness of the essential habits for examining professional information. Using fictional situations, participants distinguish facts, hypotheses and opinions, question sources and practise arguing precisely. The role plays emphasise respectful questioning and revising one's judgement.

Why this training?

Information repeated in a meeting can seem established even though it rests on a single account. Confusing observation, interpretation and preference risks rushed decisions and disagreements based on different premises. Exercising judgement does not mean systematically disagreeing. It means asking for verifiable evidence, recognising the limits of a line of reasoning and discussing ideas without discrediting people, even when urgency creates pressure to reach a conclusion. Running case study: At ‘Rivage Colis’, a fictional delivery company, a manager proposes changing working hours following several complaints. An internal message attributes delays to the new arrangements, but accounts differ. Participants examine the case file before making a cautious recommendation. Transfer to the workplace: At an upcoming meeting, choose a claim to examine: ask for its source, distinguish observation from interpretation, then propose a check. After the discussion, note what helped clarify the disagreement and what remains uncertain.

Objectives of this training

  • Classify statements as verifiable facts, hypotheses and opinions.
  • Examine a source according to its origin, date and context.
  • Identify a shortcut in reasoning during a discussion.
  • Formulate an argument linking the conclusion, available evidence and limitations.
  • Question a claim without attacking its author.

Who is it for and what are the prerequisites?

Roles and tasks concerned

  • Employees in any role who share information or recommendations.
  • Line managers wishing to better distinguish factual disagreement from differences in interpretation.

Prior skills

  • No prior knowledge of argumentation is necessary.
  • Be able to describe an everyday situation involving a meeting or the sharing of information.

What you will work on

  1. Separate observation from interpretation

    Objective: Identify the status of a statement before repeating it. Verifiable fact, explanatory hypothesis and opinion; the difference between apparent precision and available evidence.

  2. Question the strength of sources

    Objective: Determine what information genuinely allows you to claim. Origin, proximity to the facts, date, context, corroboration; the distinction between absence of evidence and evidence to the contrary.

  3. Argue without entrenching disagreement

    Objective: Support a conclusion proportionate to the available evidence. Conclusion, reasons, evidence and caveats; hasty generalisation, confusion between sequence and causation, selective searching for favourable evidence.

  4. Revise your judgement methodically

    Objective: Adjust your position when new evidence emerges. Degree of certainty, alternative explanation and formulation of a conditional recommendation.

What you take away

  • Annotated grid distinguishing facts, hypotheses and opinions.
  • Information verification sheet.
  • Argument framework with explicit caveats.
  • Personal card of questions to ask before reaching a conclusion.

Method and assessment

  • Short explanations followed by immediate practice using the running case study.
  • Individual work followed by work in pairs, with peer review of outputs.
  • Guided group discussion: what works, what needs correcting and what remains a human decision.
  • Preparation: Identify a professional claim whose status seemed ambiguous, without sharing confidential data. Arrange paper materials or only tools authorised by the organisation; exercises use exclusively fictional or anonymised cases.

Observable criteria: The classification of statements is justified by their verifiable, assumed or subjective nature. ; The assessment of a source examines origin, date, context and corroboration. ; The argument presented distinguishes the available evidence from the proposed conclusion. ; Questioning focuses on the claim rather than the person. ; New information leads to an explicit re-examination of the initial conclusion..

Frequently asked questions

Do I need to enjoy debating?

No. The short exchanges mainly develop listening, clarification and question formulation.

Are we looking for a single answer to the case file?

No. Several conclusions may be defensible if their supporting evidence and limitations are explicit.

Can we use a real-life situation?

Yes, after anonymisation; the fictional case file remains available to avoid any exposure of sensitive information.

How is learning observed?

Through justified classifications, role plays and the ability to revise a conclusion after receiving new evidence.

Last updated: