Research And Critical Thinking Prompts

INPUTS
[topic]; [purpose]; [audience]; [scope]; [time available]

PROMPT
Act as a research adviser. Turn the broad topic into three focused research questions that can be answered within the scope and time available. Explain the practical decision each question supports, key terms to define, suitable evidence, and likely limitations. Recommend one question and create a research plan with search terms, inclusion criteria, source types, and a synthesis method. Distinguish exploratory questions from claims to test. End with a checklist for avoiding an answer that is broad, interesting, and unusable.

INPUTS
[research question]; [papers or reports]; [source identifiers]; [length]

PROMPT
Create a literature brief using only the supplied papers or reports. Summarize the question, methods, main findings, areas of agreement, contradictions, and gaps. Link each substantive claim to its source identifier. Distinguish a paper's finding from your synthesis and account for differences in populations, methods, or dates. Produce a comparison table and a concise narrative. Do not invent citations or imply a comprehensive search. End with limitations of this source set and the next evidence that would improve the brief.

INPUTS
[claim]; [supporting sources]; [opposing sources]; [decision context]

PROMPT
Assess how well the supplied evidence supports the claim. Examine source provenance, method, relevance, sample, measurement, incentives, and whether findings are independently corroborated. Explain weaknesses without dismissing a source merely because it disagrees. Separate absence of evidence from evidence of absence. Deliver an evidence table, a calibrated conclusion, and the strongest remaining uncertainty. End with what would change the conclusion and what decision can reasonably be made now. Avoid assigning precise confidence percentages without a defensible basis.

INPUTS
[observation]; [context]; [available evidence]; [possible causes]

PROMPT
Generate plausible competing explanations for the observation. For each, describe the mechanism, evidence that supports it, evidence that conflicts, and a practical test that would distinguish it from alternatives. Include at least one explanation that challenges the initial interpretation. Rank hypotheses only as far as the evidence allows. Present a comparison table and a short recommendation for the next investigation. Avoid claiming causation from timing or correlation. End with the lowest-cost check that could most improve the decision.

INPUTS
[document A]; [document B]; [comparison purpose]; [source labels]

PROMPT
Compare the two documents against the specified purpose. Identify agreement, substantive differences, missing information, changed definitions, and contradictions. Cite section or paragraph identifiers beside each finding. Distinguish factual differences from differences in emphasis or wording. Provide a concise comparison table and an implications summary for the intended reader. Do not silently resolve contradictions or assume the newer document is authoritative. End with questions to clarify and the exact passages that need review before a decision is based on either document.

INPUTS
[research objective]; [audience]; [survey length]; [decisions]; [known constraints]

PROMPT
Design a survey that answers the research objective with minimal respondent burden. Create neutral questions with appropriate response formats, clear time references, and mutually understandable options. Include a do-not-know or not-applicable choice where appropriate. Explain how each question supports a decision and identify questions that should be interviews instead. Provide a pilot-testing checklist and a basic analysis plan. Avoid leading wording, double-barreled questions, and unnecessary personal information. End with limitations of the sampling approach and what the survey cannot establish.

INPUTS
[interview transcripts]; [research question]; [source identifiers]; [initial themes]

PROMPT
Develop a qualitative coding framework for these interviews. Define each code, inclusion and exclusion rules, and an example anchored in the supplied text. Allow new themes to emerge instead of forcing every passage into the initial framework. Code a small sample and explain ambiguous cases. Produce a codebook, theme matrix, and notes on contradictory evidence. Preserve context around quoted passages. End with a consistency-check process for another reviewer and a caution against treating frequency alone as importance.

INPUTS
[argument]; [evidence]; [audience]; [desired conclusion]

PROMPT
Evaluate the argument as a fair-minded critical reviewer. Identify its central claim, supporting premises, unstated assumptions, and whether the conclusion follows. Present the strongest reasonable counterargument and the evidence that would support it. Distinguish a weak presentation from a genuinely unsupported claim. Suggest revisions that improve accuracy without changing the author's position unnecessarily. Deliver an argument map in prose, a weakness table, and a stronger version. End with questions that must be answered before the conclusion can be stated confidently.

INPUTS
[question]; [date range]; [geography]; [preferred source types]; [length]

PROMPT
If browsing is available, research the question using relevant primary sources and provide working links with publication or update dates. Compare conflicting evidence and explain differences in scope or definitions. Distinguish current findings from older context and mark any inference. Deliver a concise answer, an evidence table, and unresolved questions. If browsing is unavailable, state that limitation and provide a search plan instead of pretending to retrieve sources. Do not invent references or describe search snippets as a full review of the underlying documents.

INPUTS
[decision]; [options]; [known facts]; [unknowns]; [stakes]; [deadline]

PROMPT
Help make this decision under uncertainty. Separate facts, estimates, assumptions, and preferences. Compare the options by consequences, reversibility, and the value of waiting for more information. Identify the unknown most likely to change the choice and propose a practical way to investigate it. Recommend a provisional decision with conditions and a review point. Include the strongest counterargument. End with a short decision record that documents what was known at the time rather than presenting the choice as certain.