{ "project": "Before You Believe It", "lang": "en", "version": "1.0.0", "updated": "2026-07-22", "license": "CC BY 4.0 — https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/", "attribution": "Before You Believe It — Association ODERSA", "categories": [ { "id": "sante", "label": "Health & miracle cures" }, { "id": "argent", "label": "Scams & easy money" }, { "id": "images", "label": "Misused images & videos" }, { "id": "experts", "label": "Fake experts" }, { "id": "chiffres", "label": "Misleading numbers" }, { "id": "vieux", "label": "Old content resurfacing" }, { "id": "fabrique", "label": "Fabricated content" }, { "id": "viral", "label": "Viral messages & chains" }, { "id": "titres", "label": "Trap headlines" }, { "id": "complot", "label": "“They're hiding everything”" } ], "levels": { "1": "Easy", "2": "Medium", "3": "Tough" }, "count": 300, "cases": [ { "id": "sante-f-01", "category": "sante", "level": 1, "situation": "An influencer on social media posts: “This spirulina supplement cures migraines, boosts your energy, clears your skin AND strengthens your immune system. I've been taking it for a month and it's honestly a miracle. Link in bio to order.”", "question": "What's off here?", "options": [ "A product that claims five unrelated benefits without proof for any of them is a big red flag", "Influencers should never talk about supplements", "Spirulina can't possibly cause five different effects from one ingredient" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "A product that claims to fix five different things at once should trigger your “too good to be true” alarm. And here's the giveaway: the influencer is the one selling it. The right move: always start with “who's talking, and what are they selling?”", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r07" ] }, { "id": "sante-f-02", "category": "sante", "level": 1, "situation": "A sales site claims: “Your doctor will NEVER tell you about this ancient technique. Drug companies pay big money to keep you in the dark. We're the ones brave enough to reveal it to you first.”", "question": "What's the warning sign?", "options": [ "A technique that actually worked would spread on its own, even without advertising", "The secret is supposedly kept by a worldwide conspiracy", "None - doctors really do hide good information to sell more medication" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "“They're hiding it from you” or “they don't want you to know” is classic manipulative marketing. If a real solution existed, curious doctors would find it and spread the word. A total, worldwide cover-up just isn't plausible. And who benefits from this “secret”? Whoever is selling it to you.", "reflexes": [ "r07", "r01" ] }, { "id": "sante-f-03", "category": "sante", "level": 1, "situation": "A post is going around: “Pineapple cured a woman's breast cancer in three months! She didn't do anything else, just ate pineapple every day. A natural miracle that hospitals don't want you to know about. Share this to save lives!”", "question": "What should make you pause before sharing this?", "options": [ "Pineapples are too expensive for hospitals to prescribe", "Breast cancer can't be cured by a fruit", "It reads like a true story, but there's no name, no place, no date - there's no way to check it" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A moving story is powerful... but without a single checkable detail (who? where? when?), that's a warning sign, not proof. And “share this to save lives”? That's designed to trigger emotion so you skip the thinking part. The move: before you share, look for who's actually saying this, and with what evidence.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r05" ] }, { "id": "sante-f-04", "category": "sante", "level": 1, "situation": "A video claims: “White rice is POISON. It kills your brain cells and causes dementia. Governments let it stay on shelves because it's profitable for farmers.” It has half a million views.", "question": "What should you do before sharing this?", "options": [ "Check with public health sources whether white rice is actually banned or officially discouraged anywhere", "Count the views - that many views means the information must be checked out already", "Ask a grain of white rice directly whether it's toxic" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "A danger that no health authority ever mentions, about a food sold everywhere? That combination is the real signal. Genuine health threats get flagged by health bodies, loudly. Views prove nothing - dramatic videos spread just as well when they're false. The move: check what official health sources actually say.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r09" ] }, { "id": "sante-f-05", "category": "sante", "level": 1, "situation": "On a forum, someone shares: “My grandmother always said a glass of warm water first thing in the morning wakes up your digestive system. I've been doing it for two years and I feel better.” No miracle claims, just a personal habit.", "question": "What's the right take here?", "options": [ "It's nonsense, grandmothers didn't know anything", "You should call a doctor before drinking warm water", "It's probably a harmless habit and likely just a placebo effect - not dangerous, not proven either" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Not every old family tip is a lie. Warm water in the morning? Harmless, maybe even pleasant. The real effect is probably placebo. But here's the lesson: you can call a habit harmless without calling it magic. Learning to check isn't the same as rejecting everything.", "reflexes": [ "r10" ] }, { "id": "sante-f-06", "category": "sante", "level": 1, "situation": "A social media account posts daily: “ALERT: vaccines are hiding mercury!”... “Your skin is suffering, buy our exclusive organic cream!”... “Doctors are lying to you - check out our book here.” It alternates between scary warnings and sales pitches.", "question": "What's the trap?", "options": [ "Anyone who sells something must be dishonest", "Real experts warn people for free; this account is using fear to sell products", "No trap here - real experts need money to live too" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A person can be a genuine expert AND sell something. But when almost every “alert” from the same account ends in a sale? That's fear marketing. The move: look at who's talking and what they gain. If the pattern is “alarm equals urgency equals buy from me,” that's the signal.", "reflexes": [ "r07", "r01" ] }, { "id": "sante-f-07", "category": "sante", "level": 1, "situation": "A site offers: “Our 7-day juice cleanse will flush the toxins out of your liver. After one week, you'll be purified, energized, and glowing.” There's no mention of what exactly needs eliminating, or how.", "question": "What should you check first?", "options": [ "Whether the juice actually tastes good", "Whether it's cheaper than other cleanse programs", "Whether your liver actually needs “cleaning” of these vague “toxins” in the first place" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "“Toxins” is the magic word of wellness marketing - it's almost never defined. Your liver already purifies itself; it doesn't need juice to do its job. “Purified,” “energized,” “glowing” are vague, universal promises that fit any product. The move: when something promises a big internal cleanse without saying exactly what it's cleaning, slow down.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r08" ] }, { "id": "sante-f-08", "category": "sante", "level": 1, "situation": "A video shows a woman in tears, describing how a miracle plant cured an illness doctors couldn't treat. It's genuinely moving, she seems completely sincere - and at the end, she sells the plant.", "question": "What's the trap here?", "options": [ "Videos can never count as proof that someone was cured", "A single testimonial, even a sincere and moving one, doesn't prove something works", "She shouldn't cry on camera, it makes her less credible" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "She might genuinely believe every word. But a story, even a true one, isn't scientific evidence. Maybe she recovered and the plant helped. Maybe she would have recovered anyway. The move: a testimonial is touching, but it's just one case. Proof needs studies, numbers, and comparisons.", "reflexes": [ "r05", "r09" ] }, { "id": "sante-f-09", "category": "sante", "level": 1, "situation": "An article's headline reads: “A study proves that meditation adds 15 years to your life!” You read on, looking for the source... nothing. No link, no researcher's name, no date.", "question": "What should you do?", "options": [ "Accept that meditation adds 15 years to your life - it sounds logical enough", "Ask for a link to the actual study before believing or sharing it", "Believe the article - if it says “study,” it must come from real research" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "“A study shows” can be true... or completely made up. If the article is really quoting one, there will be a link or a name somewhere. No source at all is a red flag. The move: a named source, or nothing.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r03" ] }, { "id": "sante-f-10", "category": "sante", "level": 1, "situation": "A post declares: “Want to be healthy? Sleep exactly 8 hours, drink 3 liters of water a day, do an hour of exercise, eat 10 servings of fruit, AND you'll be healthy. There are NO other factors involved.”", "question": "What's off here?", "options": [ "Nothing's wrong, you should be strict about your health", "These are genuinely good habits, but presented in an exaggerated, oversimplified way", "These are all fake tips" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Sleeping well, moving, staying hydrated - genuinely good advice. But claiming “NO other factors” involved? That's false. Genetics, stress, access to healthcare, age - they all matter. And not everyone can hit exactly 8 hours or a full hour of exercise. Good advice turns dishonest the moment it turns absolute.", "reflexes": [ "r10" ] }, { "id": "sante-m-01", "category": "sante", "level": 2, "situation": "You get a text: “URGENT: a study is hiding the truth about sugar. Read this before they take it down - you have 48 hours.” A friend sent it to you. Clicking through, you land on a social media account selling bars that are “secretly sugar-free.”", "question": "What are the traps here?", "options": [ "Sugar isn't actually dangerous", "Manufactured urgency + a hidden secret + a sale = a textbook manipulative combo", "A text message can't possibly tell the truth" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "“Before they take it down”? No major study vanishes overnight. “48 hours to read it”? That's urgency marketing. “This account happens to sell the fix”? There's the sale. Three stacked warning signs. The move: when you're scared of missing out, that's exactly when to stop and think.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r07", "r03" ] }, { "id": "sante-m-02", "category": "sante", "level": 2, "situation": "A friend tells you: “I read that taking a certain amount of vitamin C can shorten a cold by a day or two. Makes sense, right?”", "question": "What's the right response?", "options": [ "That's false, no vitamin does anything against colds", "That's true, everyone knows vitamin C cures colds", "It's plausible, but you can't be sure without seeing the source - so the move is to go find it" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A study like that could genuinely exist - it's plausible enough. But “I read that” without a source means there's nothing to check yet. The move: “Where did you read it, exactly?” Not to shoot the claim down, just to find out what you're actually dealing with.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r03" ] }, { "id": "sante-m-03", "category": "sante", "level": 2, "situation": "A wristband-style gadget vibrates gently against your skin. The maker claims: “Detects your energy imbalances and corrects them in 10 minutes. Patented, approved by leading wellness specialists.” There's no source given, and the specific title used doesn't correspond to any real profession.", "question": "What deserves a closer look here?", "options": [ "The vague idea of an “energy imbalance,” plus science-sounding words that don't hold up, plus zero studies cited - together, that's a signal", "The patent genuinely exists, which proves the device works", "A wristband that vibrates has to do something" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "“Energy imbalance” is fuzzy marketing language. A made-up specialist title is there to sound like an expert - nothing more. A real patent can cover literally anything, including something useless; it's not proof the thing works. The move: expert in what field, trained where? Patented by whom, for what, exactly?", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r02" ] }, { "id": "sante-m-04", "category": "sante", "level": 2, "situation": "A message is spreading on a messaging app: “The authorities are hiding the fact that red tomatoes have contained a deadly bacteria for two months. Stop buying them!” But a search turns up nothing - no health authority has said anything like this. Public health agencies mention nothing at all.", "question": "What should you conclude?", "options": [ "Authorities really do hide information like this, which is why there's no news about it", "You should avoid tomatoes just to be safe", "The absence of any official warning means this is a false alarm - drop it" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Real health alerts get announced loudly, by health authorities, everywhere. No official source plus a scary claim usually means noise or a spreading rumor, not a cover-up. The lesson: if it were real and dangerous, it would be everywhere, not buried in a forwarded message. The move: go look for the official source yourself.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r03", "r05" ] }, { "id": "sante-m-05", "category": "sante", "level": 2, "situation": "A nutritionist with real credentials posts: “Eating more fish is great for your heart health.” That's true, generally speaking. But in the comments, the same person recommends “raw fish six days a week to cure clogged arteries.”", "question": "What's the trap here?", "options": [ "Nutritionists should never give advice", "Raw fish is dangerous", "A sound piece of general advice turns bad once it's stretched into an extreme dose and an extreme promise" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "“Fish is good for you” - true. “Fish cures clogged arteries if you eat it raw constantly” - not true. Even a genuine expert can overreach on their own advice. The move: separate the reasonable general tip from the exaggerated promise stapled onto it.", "reflexes": [ "r08" ] }, { "id": "sante-m-06", "category": "sante", "level": 2, "situation": "An article argues: “Unprotected sun exposure causes skin cancer. THEREFORE you must NEVER go outside without SPF 80+ sunscreen. Even 5 minutes of sun is dangerous.”", "question": "What's exaggerated here?", "options": [ "The sun doesn't cause cancer at all", "Unprotected exposure IS a real risk, but “never go outside” is an exaggerated, unrealistic leap", "Nothing - you really should be afraid of the sun" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "The basic fact is true. But jumping straight to “never go outside” is an exaggeration. Health is about balance, not absolutes. A bit of sun is fine. Smart protection without panic is the real lesson. When someone stretches a real risk all the way into panic, it's often because they're about to sell you something.", "reflexes": [ "r06" ] }, { "id": "sante-m-07", "category": "sante", "level": 2, "situation": "A site offers: “Our scanner measures your “toxin” level on a scale of 0 to 100. Your result: 75 toxins. To get rid of them, buy our cleanse program.”", "question": "What's the problem?", "options": [ "“Toxins” isn't a real measurement you can quantify like that - it's a marketing word", "75 is too high a number", "The scanner itself must be fake hardware" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Real measurements have real units - blood sugar in mg/dL, blood pressure in mmHg. “Toxins” on a scale of 100 isn't a defined, measurable thing anywhere in actual medicine. If a measurement isn't clearly defined, it's theater. The move: ask what exactly is being measured, and in what unit.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r09" ] }, { "id": "sante-m-08", "category": "sante", "level": 2, "situation": "A post shows a photo of a liver, supposedly from someone who ate fast food for 30 days straight. It's black and swollen. The caption reads: “This is what happens to YOUR liver if you eat this!” The photo is actually of a liver damaged by a severe, unrelated disease.", "question": "What should you do?", "options": [ "Believe that a month of fast food really can turn a liver black", "Throw out all your fast food immediately", "Notice that the image is dramatic, and check whether it actually shows what it claims to show" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "An image can be completely real and still not show what it claims. That damaged liver exists somewhere - but it might be the result of a disease that took 30 years, not 30 days of burgers. The move: a shocking image paired with a simple explanation is exactly when you go check.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r03" ] }, { "id": "sante-m-09", "category": "sante", "level": 2, "situation": "A fitness account posts: “True: regular exercise strengthens your heart. False: you absolutely MUST do 2 hours a day. My solution? My scientifically designed app for your daily 2-hour workout, only a monthly fee.”", "question": "What deserves some doubt here?", "options": [ "The true-plus-false mix is convincing, but the “solution” is just selling hours your body doesn't actually need", "Nothing - exercise is good, full stop", "Any fitness app is automatically a scam" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Opening with something true makes the rest go down easier. Then in slides an exaggeration, followed by the “solution” for sale - that's a classic marketing move. The move: separate what's true from what's false, then ask who's profiting from the sale.", "reflexes": [ "r07", "r08" ] }, { "id": "sante-m-10", "category": "sante", "level": 2, "situation": "A headline announces: “Study shows eggs add 10 years to your life!” The study is real, but it was actually about people who ate a lot of eggs WITHIN a broader pattern of a balanced diet, regular exercise, and not smoking.", "question": "What's missing from the headline?", "options": [ "The context of the other major factors involved - it's the combination that matters, not the egg by itself", "Nothing, eggs really do add years to your life, full stop", "The names of the researchers who ran the study" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "A study can be entirely real and still get summarized dishonestly. “Eggs add years to your life” makes a punchy headline. But read in full, it describes an overall healthy lifestyle. Taking ONE variable and inflating it into the whole story is misleading. The move: read the actual study, not just the headline.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r09" ] }, { "id": "sante-c-01", "category": "sante", "level": 3, "situation": "A well-known cardiologist publishes: “My 18-month study proves this magnesium supplement reduces heart risk. That's why I take it myself and recommend it to my patients.” Checking the manufacturer's site, you find the same doctor is a co-founder and shareholder of the company.", "question": "What deserves a second look here?", "options": [ "Studies run by experts can never be objective", "The expert may be entirely sincere but also has a financial stake in the product - that's a conflict worth flagging", "A cardiologist should never sell products to their own patients" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Real doctor, real study, real supplement. But he's also selling it. That's not necessarily a lie - it's an undisclosed conflict of interest. He can be genuinely convinced AND make money every time someone buys. The move: look at who's talking and what they personally gain - that's the step that matters most.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r07", "r08" ] }, { "id": "sante-c-02", "category": "sante", "level": 3, "situation": "A wellness influencer posts: “I eat ONLY organic. It's the ONLY way to stay healthy. People who eat normal food? They're slowly poisoning themselves. Subscribe to my app to plan your organic shopping list, just a small monthly fee.”", "question": "What's off here?", "options": [ "Organic is generally a good choice, but calling it the “ONLY way” is an exaggeration that's really there to sell something", "The influencer is wrong - there's no benefit to organic food at all", "Nothing's wrong, organic food is always better" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Organic is often a solid choice for certain foods. But “the ONLY way”? That's false, and it's designed to sell a subscription. Plenty of healthy people don't eat 100% organic. Once a reasonable claim turns absolute, it's usually a sign that something's for sale. Good advice that strangles itself with its own extremism.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r07", "r10" ] }, { "id": "sante-c-03", "category": "sante", "level": 3, "situation": "A post argues: “FACT: vaccines used to contain a mercury-based preservative. FACT: autism diagnoses have been rising. THEREFORE vaccines cause autism. Stay alert!” Two true statements, stitched into one false conclusion.", "question": "What's the trap here?", "options": [ "Two true facts don't prove they're connected - multiple large studies have found no link between vaccines and autism", "No trap - if two things are true, the connection between them must be true too", "Vaccines never contained any mercury-based preservative" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Gluing two true facts together creates the illusion of proof. But the rise in diagnoses is largely explained by better detection and broader criteria, and independent research has repeatedly found no link. The move: two true facts don't equal one true connection - go check what the actual research says about the relationship.", "reflexes": [ "r05", "r02", "r09" ] }, { "id": "sante-c-04", "category": "sante", "level": 3, "situation": "A health site's headline announces: “Study PROVES this superfood triples your memory in two months!” Reading further, it's a small preliminary study on 28 people, funded by the company selling the product, with a short follow-up period and uncontrolled variables.", "question": "What should you make of this?", "options": [ "It's plausible but needs more checking - a small preliminary study is a starting point, not final proof", "It's impossible for this product to do anything at all", "The study proves it - the numbers are right there" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "A study genuinely exists, that part's true. But small, preliminary, funded by the seller, with flagged weaknesses? That's an interesting lead, not proof. Real confirmation comes from larger studies run by independent researchers. Here, the headline shouts “PROVES” about what is really a first clue - mistaking an appealing hypothesis for a settled fact.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r03", "r09" ] }, { "id": "sante-c-05", "category": "sante", "level": 3, "situation": "A panicked message spreads in a parents' group chat: “ALERT: dangerous bacteria found in a batch of dairy products. Check your fridge!” No date, no brand name, no official source mentioned anywhere.", "question": "What should you do?", "options": [ "It must be false, because bacteria can't contaminate dairy products", "Throw out all your dairy immediately and panic", "It's a plausible type of alert, but you can't decide either way without finding the official source - real health authorities would announce this publicly with details" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Product recalls really happen; they're real and serious. But this message is too vague - no brand, no date, no official link. A genuine alert gets published by health authorities through a clear channel, with specifics. Here, there's nothing to verify, so there's nothing to safely act on. The move: find the official health authority's site, not the version floating around the group chat.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r03", "r05" ] }, { "id": "sante-c-06", "category": "sante", "level": 3, "situation": "An alarming video title claims: “This common kitchen ingredient is 10,000 times more toxic than you think!” Watching further, it's technically true that at extremely high doses - doses you'd never reach through normal cooking - this ingredient can be harmful. But there's no context about the actual amounts involved.", "question": "What's the problem here?", "options": [ "You should throw out everything in your kitchen immediately", "A dramatic number with no context (what dose? compared to what?) is fear marketing", "This ingredient is never toxic under any circumstances" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "“10,000 times” sounds terrifying. But without saying at what dose, and compared to what, it's a number that means almost nothing. Ordinary salt is toxic at a high enough dose - so is water. Using an extreme number with zero context is designed to scare, not to inform. The move: a lone number is noise. Go find the context.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r09", "r07" ] }, { "id": "sante-c-07", "category": "sante", "level": 3, "situation": "A product describes itself: “This bracelet emits harmonic frequencies that realign your cells and restore your energy. Wellness-approved.” Terms like “harmonic frequencies” and “cell realignment” don't correspond to any real, established mechanism in medicine.", "question": "What smells like a scam here?", "options": [ "The impressive-sounding vocabulary that doesn't actually mean anything specific - “harmonic frequencies” and “realignment” are marketing words, not medical terms", "It's just cutting-edge technology, so it's normal that we don't understand it yet", "Bracelets like this always work somehow" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "“Harmonic frequencies” is an invented phrase built to sound scientific. “Realigning your cells” doesn't correspond to anything real. When impressive-sounding pseudo-scientific language shows up undefined, it's usually because someone's selling a feeling, not an actual result. The move: if nobody can explain simply how it's supposed to work, be suspicious.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r06" ] }, { "id": "sante-c-08", "category": "sante", "level": 3, "situation": "A friend shares: “My grandmother always told me to drink a glass of white vinegar in warm water every morning to “clean out my system.” I've been doing it for three months and I feel more energetic.” No healing claims, just a personal habit.", "question": "What should you make of this?", "options": [ "It's nonsense, white vinegar doesn't clean anything", "They should absolutely stop right away", "Probably harmless, plausibly just a placebo effect - but there's no need to tear it apart either, if it makes them happy and isn't hurting them" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Not dangerous. That “energy” is probably placebo, or just the good feeling of a small morning ritual. But here's the important nuance: you don't have to settle everything one way or the other. Not every old family habit is a lie, and not every one is truly effective either. You're learning to check things, not to reject anything unproven. That's fine too.", "reflexes": [ "r10" ] }, { "id": "sante-c-09", "category": "sante", "level": 3, "situation": "An article's headline reads: “Experts recommend: NEVER eat sugar, not a single gram. Zero sugar is the only path to health.” Checking the actual official guidelines, the real advice is to “limit and moderate,” not “eliminate completely.”", "question": "What changed here?", "options": [ "A true official recommendation (moderate your sugar) got turned into an exaggerated absolute (zero sugar) that's both false and alarming", "The experts are wrong - you really should cut out all sugar completely", "There's no real difference between the two" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "“Limit your sugar” is sound advice, based on real research. But an article twists it into “never, zero, absolutely not.” That's false. A little sugar isn't poison, and a completely sugar-free life isn't realistic or even healthy (fruit and natural dairy sugars exist for a reason). When someone takes an official recommendation and stretches it into an absolute, it's often to sell their own “solution.” The move: go read the official source directly.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r06" ] }, { "id": "sante-c-10", "category": "sante", "level": 3, "situation": "Someone shares: “I had chronic back pain for two years. I bought this special massage device for a decent chunk of money and used it every day. After three weeks, the pain was completely gone! It's honestly life-changing.” The pain could just as easily have eased on its own, or with physical therapy.", "question": "What can't we conclude from this?", "options": [ "The pain easing and the device happened close together in time, but that doesn't mean one caused the other - that's a classic timing trap", "The device definitely caused the recovery", "The device had nothing to do with it at all" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "The timing is seductive: pain, then a purchase, then relief. So the device must have done it, right? Not necessarily. The back might have been healing on its own anyway. Physical therapy or simple rest could have done the same job. Daily movement alone often helps. You can't write “A happened, then B happened, so A caused B.” The move: improvement after using a product doesn't prove the product caused it - that needs separate evidence.", "reflexes": [ "r05", "r10" ] }, { "id": "argent-f-01", "category": "argent", "level": 1, "situation": "You get an email from a personal email address. A man introduces himself as a lawyer representing an international law firm. He explains that you're inheriting two million euros from a distant relative you'd never heard of, who died without a will. But before you can receive the money, you first need to pay a 500-euro processing fee to release the inheritance.", "question": "What's the main warning sign?", "options": [ "You'd never heard of this relative, so it must be fake", "The email comes from a personal address, not an official one", "You're being asked to pay money in order to receive more money" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "The scam runs on this logic: to unlock a supposedly huge payout, they ask you to front a small “fee” first. But a real inheritance goes through a local notary or estate lawyer, never through a payment to a stranger online. The move: always check with a licensed notary before handing over a cent.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r01" ] }, { "id": "argent-f-02", "category": "argent", "level": 1, "situation": "In a group chat, someone shares a screenshot: an investment portfolio that supposedly turned into 50,000 in three months, from a plan that pays 10% every week. He says: “It's simple, it's easy, and it's for everyone. Join me, this changes your life!”", "question": "Why is this a warning sign?", "options": [ "An investment that guarantees 10% every week is financially impossible", "Investments that make serious money are always reserved for wealthy people", "Sharing a screenshot proves it's real, since you can see the result" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Financial markets simply don't allow returns that are both this regular and this enormous. Every real investment carries risk. When someone promises fixed, massive gains, it's either a scam or an illusion built to look like one. The move: find out where the money actually goes, and who really benefits from the system.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r07" ] }, { "id": "argent-f-03", "category": "argent", "level": 1, "situation": "You get a text: “Security alert: your bank account will be suspended tonight unless you reconnect. Click here to verify immediately: [link].” The message appears to come from your bank's usual number. Panic kicks in.", "question": "What shouldn't let you click?", "options": [ "A made-up sense of urgency pushing you to act right now, without thinking", "The fact that it seems to come from your bank's number, so it must be legitimate", "The fact that it's a text message rather than a phone call" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Scammers manufacture urgency (“tonight,” “suspended”) to make you click before you can check anything. No real bank ever asks you to confirm your codes through a link in a text message. The move: call your bank yourself, using the number printed on the back of your card, before you click anything.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r02" ] }, { "id": "argent-f-04", "category": "argent", "level": 1, "situation": "An email announces: “Congratulations! You've won 100,000 in a major international lottery.” You don't remember ever entering, but the email says it's automatic for anyone with an email address. To receive your prize, you're asked to send your personal and banking details.", "question": "What detail makes this offer clearly fake?", "options": [ "The amount is too large to be believable", "You don't remember entering, yet only people who actually enter can win", "Real lotteries ask for personal information by email to validate a win" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A real lottery only pays out if you bought a ticket or actually entered. No lottery randomly targets email addresses. The first reflex: if you don't remember entering, there's nothing waiting for you. The move: be especially suspicious of “automatic” wins, or prizes you supposedly won without even knowing you were in the running.", "reflexes": [ "r10", "r06" ] }, { "id": "argent-f-05", "category": "argent", "level": 1, "situation": "A man calls you, saying he's your bank advisor. He explains there's been a fraud attempt on your account and he needs to verify your identity. He asks: “Can you give me your 4-digit security code, just to confirm it's really you?”", "question": "Why should you never answer this?", "options": [ "Bank advisors don't pay attention to clients' security codes", "Saying a code out loud on the phone is risky because someone nearby might overhear it", "Your bank already has all your security codes on file - it never needs to ask for them over the phone" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Here's the golden rule: your real bank will NEVER ask for your security codes, passwords, or full card number over the phone. If someone demands it, that's a scam, full stop. The move: hang up and call your bank back yourself, on the official number printed on your card.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "argent-f-06", "category": "argent", "level": 1, "situation": "On a classifieds site, you find an ad: a recent-model car, low mileage, priced 30% below market. The photo looks genuine. The seller says they need to sell fast because they're moving abroad, and asks for a deposit to “reserve” the car before you even see it.", "question": "What's the classic trap here?", "options": [ "That the seller is moving abroad, so you couldn't take legal action later", "Demanding payment before letting you inspect the car", "That the car seems too new to be sold at that price" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "The scheme is a classic: a very attractive price, manufactured urgency (“I'm leaving soon”), and a request for a deposit before you've seen the item. The money disappears, and so does the car - if it ever existed. The move: never send money before physically seeing both the item and the seller.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r07" ] }, { "id": "argent-f-07", "category": "argent", "level": 1, "situation": "A friend invites you to an online meeting. They say they've found a “mutual support club” where everyone earns money just by inviting other people in. The more you invite, the more you earn. They show photos of happy people receiving bonuses. Joining is free at the start.", "question": "What's the real mechanism here?", "options": [ "It's free, so there's no risk in trying it", "It's a genuine mutual support system that banks simply don't like", "It's a pyramid scheme: only the people at the top win, funded by the money new members put in" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Any system where you mainly earn by recruiting other people is a pyramid scheme. The only real winners are the earliest ones, and it always collapses eventually. Money from new members flows up to fund the earlier ones - there's no actual product or service generating it. The move: walk away the moment a system pushes recruiting harder than any real product or service.", "reflexes": [ "r07", "r05" ] }, { "id": "argent-f-08", "category": "argent", "level": 1, "situation": "You find a job listing that pays very well: a solid monthly salary, remote work, very few hours required. Before you can start, the company asks you to pay a fee for “mandatory training” or a “starter kit.” Without that payment, you can't even see the full job details.", "question": "What signal should stop you here?", "options": [ "A real company hiring staff never asks candidates to pay money", "It's normal to have to pay for training", "Since the job is remote, the company must be covering its costs somewhere else" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "This is a dead giveaway: a real employer pays for your training, they don't charge you for it. If you're asked for money before you've even started a job, that's a recruitment scam. The money disappears, and the job never existed. The move: report listings like this.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r06" ] }, { "id": "argent-f-09", "category": "argent", "level": 1, "situation": "An email announces: “Good news! You're getting a 450 refund on your taxes. Click below to confirm your refund and receive the transfer within 48 hours.” The email is beautifully designed, with an official-looking logo.", "question": "Why should you stay cautious anyway?", "options": [ "A real refund or tax rebate is first announced through an official letter, never through an email demanding an urgent click", "If the email has an official-looking logo, it must be genuine", "These days, all refunds happen by email" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Scammers impersonate the organizations that actually pay out money - tax offices, insurers, postal services. An email demanding an urgent click to “confirm” something is almost always a trap. The real process is slower and far less dramatic. The move: never click a link in an email to claim a refund - go straight to the official site by typing the address in yourself.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r04" ] }, { "id": "argent-f-10", "category": "argent", "level": 1, "situation": "An ad leads you to a site: “Crypto investing, guaranteed. Earn 5% a day with our patented algorithm. Invest 1,000 today, withdraw 50,000 in three months.” The site displays five-star reviews and glowing testimonials. It's genuinely convincing.", "question": "What's the major trap here?", "options": [ "No algorithm can guarantee a steady 5% daily return - it's mathematically and financially impossible", "The site has positive reviews, so it must genuinely work", "Cryptocurrencies can't generate gains like this under any circumstances" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Promises of “guaranteed” or “patented” returns in crypto - or anywhere else - are always scams. “Easy” returns like this don't exist; the money you put in simply disappears. The reviews are fake, built for the site. The move: walk away the moment someone promises fixed, massive gains, guaranteed or patented.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r08" ] }, { "id": "argent-m-01", "category": "argent", "level": 2, "situation": "You get a message on a messaging app from a friend. They say they lost their wallet while traveling and can't access their bank account. They ask: “Could you lend me a large sum urgently? I'll pay you back the moment I'm home.” The tone feels natural, but it's odd that they'd ask you specifically.", "question": "Before responding, what should you do first?", "options": [ "Transfer the money right away, since it's a friend and it's urgent", "Call them by phone or video to check that it's really them", "Send the money, after asking them to also cover the transfer fees" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "This is a very common scam: a friend's account gets hijacked, and the scammer asks their contacts for urgent money. A real friend can wait ten minutes for a verification call. The move: always call the person directly, on a number you already know, before sending any money.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r10" ] }, { "id": "argent-m-02", "category": "argent", "level": 2, "situation": "You find an online shop selling well-known clothing brands at 70% off. The prices are unbeatable. The site has only existed for two months, but the reviews are glowing (five stars across the board), and it accepts card payments. You're tempted to place an order.", "question": "What deserves checking before you order?", "options": [ "Steep discounts are normal for online shops, so there's no need to check anything", "If the site accepts card payments, it must be safe", "Whether the site genuinely exists, who runs it, its physical address, and its legal information" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A very new site with rock-bottom prices and suspiciously perfect reviews are warning signs. Sites like this often steal your payment details or ship counterfeit goods. The move: check the “about us” page, look for a physical address and legal information, then search the site's name plus the word “scam.” A legitimate site leaves verifiable traces.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "argent-m-03", "category": "argent", "level": 2, "situation": "A law firm contacts you by email. An inheritance is waiting for you, but there are several fees to settle first: processing fees, notification fees, international transfer fees. Each one is explained and sounds reasonable on its own. Added up, the total comes to a few thousand.", "question": "Why stay cautious despite the detailed explanations?", "options": [ "Foreign law firms regularly reach out by email about inheritances, that's normal practice", "Legitimate inheritance fees go through a local notary or estate lawyer, never through payments to a stranger", "If every fee comes with an explanation, it must be justified" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "The scam has simply evolved: instead of one huge fee, it asks for several smaller payments that each sound reasonable. It's still a scam. A real local notary meets you in person and doesn't ask for odd advance payments like these. The move: consult a notary local to you BEFORE paying anything at all.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r06" ] }, { "id": "argent-m-04", "category": "argent", "level": 2, "situation": "A man offers you a special investment: “I've got an automated trading strategy. You put in a set amount, and every month I pay you back 10% in gains. It's tested, it's safe.” He shows you spreadsheets with impressive results stretching back two years.", "question": "What would actual finance experts say about these numbers?", "options": [ "The spreadsheets prove the system works", "Automated trading strategies are real, and this kind of return is normal", "A steady 10% a month is impossible - no investment offers that kind of regularity. It's either mathematically false or a pyramid scheme" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Scammers love financial jargon and convincing-looking spreadsheets. 10% a month works out to over 120% a year, which would outperform every market on the planet. It's either impossible or a pyramid scheme stacking new investors on top of old ones. The move: look for verifiable proof - an actual financial license, and search online for complaints.", "reflexes": [ "r09", "r08" ] }, { "id": "argent-m-05", "category": "argent", "level": 2, "situation": "You get an email carrying your bank's logo. Subject line: “Security update required.” The message asks you to verify your identity by clicking a link, or your account will be suspended. The link leads to a page that looks almost identical to the real site.", "question": "What's the trap here, even though the email looks like it's really from your bank?", "options": [ "A real bank never asks you to click an email link to verify your identity", "If the fake page imitates the real site closely enough, it counts as official", "Security update emails like this are normal and safe" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Scammers copy the design specifically to fool you. A real bank will NEVER ask you to click an email link to verify your identity. It only ever asks by calling you, or through its official site when you type the address in yourself. The move: ignore “security” links in emails - go straight to the site by typing the address.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r04" ] }, { "id": "argent-m-06", "category": "argent", "level": 2, "situation": "On a rental site, you find a nicely located three-room apartment, brand new, with a view, priced 40% below others in the area. The owner says they want to rent it out fast because they're retiring. They ask for a security deposit before you even sign a lease.", "question": "What should you check before making that payment?", "options": [ "Meet the owner in person, see the apartment, check their papers and the property deed, and sign a lease", "If the owner accepts a bank transfer, that makes it legitimate", "Rock-bottom prices like this are common, so there's no need to check anything" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "It's a classic scheme: an appealing ad, a price well below market, manufactured urgency, and a deposit requested before you've even seen the place. The scammer may be renting the same apartment to several people at once, or may not own it at all. The move: never send money without seeing the home, meeting the owner, and signing an actual lease.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r01" ] }, { "id": "argent-m-07", "category": "argent", "level": 2, "situation": "A group on social media promotes: “Secure crypto trading platform. Start with a small stake, earn a fixed daily payout, guaranteed. Not happy after 30 days? Full refund.” It's all written out clearly, and the offer looks carefully put together.", "question": "Why is a “refund guarantee” suspicious here?", "options": [ "If it's guaranteed, that makes it legitimate", "No crypto platform can guarantee steady returns. The guarantee is bait - the money either disappears or gets frozen once the deadline passes", "Crypto platforms that offer a guarantee are regulated and trustworthy" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Crypto scammers offer a “guarantee” specifically to reassure people and pull them in. After 30 days, the account freezes, the company vanishes, or it suddenly demands fees to “unlock” your funds. There's no real regulator standing behind any of it. The move: walk away the moment guaranteed crypto returns or no-questions refunds are promised.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r08" ] }, { "id": "argent-m-08", "category": "argent", "level": 2, "situation": "You've ordered a package from abroad. An email announces a customs issue. To release the package, you're told to pay a small customs fee through a payment link. The email appears to come from an official shipping carrier.", "question": "What's the main trap here?", "options": [ "Customs fees are normal and should be paid to the carrier", "If the email looks official, it must be", "Real customs fees are paid in person at delivery, never through an email link. This is a fake-fee scam" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "The scammer is impersonating a shipping carrier. Real customs fees get paid in person, at delivery - never through an email link. The link leads to a fake payment page where your money disappears, and the package was never really held up in the first place. The move: call the carrier directly, on its official number, if you're ever unsure.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r07" ] }, { "id": "argent-m-09", "category": "argent", "level": 2, "situation": "A mutual savings group invites you to join. The structure looks legitimate: official bylaws, a named president, monthly meetings. You pay in a set amount, receive an interest-free credit worth much more, and are expected to recruit other members. The more you recruit, the more points you earn.", "question": "What's the real mechanism here, despite the legal-looking front?", "options": [ "It's legitimate, since there's a proper administrative structure behind it", "It's a sophisticated pyramid scheme: only the earliest members gain; new members' money funds the earlier ones, not any real credit", "It's a genuine cooperative system, as long as the bylaws are written down properly" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Modern pyramid schemes hide behind bylaws, meetings, and a convincing legal front. But the money comes from recruitment, not from any real economic activity. The collapse is only a matter of time. The move: be wary of any system that pushes recruitment harder than an actual product or service.", "reflexes": [ "r07", "r05" ] }, { "id": "argent-m-10", "category": "argent", "level": 2, "situation": "A charismatic man starts a “savvy investors” group chat. He shares “exclusive” investment tips supposedly before the market catches on. His clients apparently made 30% in six months. He offers a spot in the group for a fee.", "question": "What should alert you first?", "options": [ "It's a great opportunity, since experts are sharing their tips", "If a tip were genuinely that profitable and exclusive, nobody would sell access to it for a small fee in a group chat. That's a con artist's move", "If people really made 30%, the advice must be legitimate" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "This is a con artist playing the role of expert. The “clients” who supposedly made 30% are often accomplices, or cherry-picked success stories. Genuine finance professionals don't hand out exclusive winning tips through a paid group chat. The move: consult advisors who are actually licensed by your country's financial regulator.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r05" ] }, { "id": "argent-c-01", "category": "argent", "level": 3, "situation": "A big clothing retailer launches an online flash sale. Items are marked “60% off,” but only for 24 hours on certain collections. The discounted prices look realistic compared to typical sales. You need to click fast, or you'll miss it.", "question": "How can you be sure this is a real promo and not a trick?", "options": [ "If it says “60% off,” that must be true", "Compare it to the price a few days earlier (search for the item before the sale) and check whether other sites are running a similar promo", "It has to be a scam, since real promos are never this big" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Real promos genuinely exist. But you shouldn't trust the sticker alone - a “discounted” price can be inflated first, so the discount looks bigger than it is. The real move: check what the item cost before the “sale” and compare it across other sites. Real deals are out there, but they still need checking.", "reflexes": [ "r09", "r02" ] }, { "id": "argent-c-02", "category": "argent", "level": 3, "situation": "Your employer offers you a raise. It's unexpected, and you're thrilled. But to receive the raise right away, you're told you have to accept it in cryptocurrency instead of regular pay. The reasoning given: “It's our new policy, to stay modern.”", "question": "What makes this offer suspicious despite its legitimate appearance?", "options": [ "A raise must be genuine if it's coming from your employer", "It's a great opportunity to earn in crypto", "No real company pays salaries in cryptocurrency - it's unstable and doesn't meet legal payroll requirements" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "This is a sophisticated trap: the raise itself might be real, but the crypto payment is where the scam hides. Once your pay is converted, control of that wallet can slip away, and the balance vanishes. No genuine company imposes a system like this. The move: refuse any salary paid in crypto - insist on regular currency landing in your actual bank account.", "reflexes": [ "r10", "r07" ] }, { "id": "argent-c-03", "category": "argent", "level": 3, "situation": "An investment fund offers you a supplementary retirement plan with an average return of 4% a year. That's lower than in the past, but the company is upfront that rates are simply low right now. The fund is registered with the relevant financial regulator. You can withdraw your money anytime, subject to a notice period.", "question": "Does this offer seem legitimate?", "options": [ "No, it must be a scam because the return is too low", "Yes, but you should still verify the fund's real identity, its registered address, its certifications, and compare its fees before signing anything", "Yes, since it's regulated, it's automatically safe" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "This is a case where the offer really could be genuine. But “possible” doesn't mean “safe.” The move: confirm the fund actually exists on the official regulatory register, identify who regulates it, compare its fees, and read the full contract. Even a regulated offer deserves checking before you sign.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r10" ] }, { "id": "argent-c-04", "category": "argent", "level": 3, "situation": "You get an email from your bank announcing a new mobile payment feature. It's perfectly formatted, uses your full name, and the link leads to a page that looks exactly like the real thing. You click through and enter your username and password. Afterward, the page just says: “Verification in progress, please try again in an hour.”", "question": "What should alarm you in hindsight?", "options": [ "The page said “verification in progress,” so you should just wait it out", "It arrived as an email rather than a text message", "You just handed your login details to a fake page. No real bank would ever ask for this by email, even on a page that looks convincing" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "The trap here is subtle: the email looks real, and the page copies the genuine site almost perfectly. But no bank will ever ask for your login credentials through an email, period. The move: always go directly to the site by typing the address yourself, never through a link in an email.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r04" ] }, { "id": "argent-c-05", "category": "argent", "level": 3, "situation": "An ad offers a studio apartment in a lesser-known part of town, well outside the center. The price is 50% below comparable listings. The ad explains: “Low demand in this area, owner selling due to health reasons, no agency involved.” The photos look clear and genuine, and the owner has a local number and is happy to arrange a viewing.", "question": "Should you dismiss this ad outright?", "options": [ "No, but you should verify things: meet the owner, see the place, ask for the property deed, and confirm the rental is legitimate", "Yes, it's a scam simply because the price is abnormally low", "No, the explanations given are clear enough to just trust" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "This is a genuinely nuanced case: the explanation could easily be true - a less sought-after area really can mean a lower price. But it's also textbook scammer language. The move: don't dismiss it, but verify carefully BEFORE any payment changes hands. A legitimate rental, a verified owner, a deed you've actually seen.", "reflexes": [ "r10", "r01" ] }, { "id": "argent-c-06", "category": "argent", "level": 3, "situation": "A site advertises: “Pay with our virtual card, earn 10% cashback on everything you buy.” That's the big, bold claim. In small print underneath: “Cashback capped at a small monthly amount, valid for 24 months, paid out as non-transferable vouchers on our partner site.”", "question": "Why is something that sounds generous actually much less attractive?", "options": [ "10% sounds huge, but the conditions shrink the real benefit drastically - most buyers will never see anything close to the advertised 10%", "It's a genuine opportunity, since the cashback does technically exist", "Conditions written in small print don't carry any legal weight" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "The offer isn't technically false, but it's built to mislead. The big, bold 10% promise gets neutralized by fine print - a low monthly cap, an expiry date, repayment in vouchers instead of cash. The move: ALWAYS read the fine print; it very often contradicts the headline promise sitting above it.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r09" ] }, { "id": "argent-c-07", "category": "argent", "level": 3, "situation": "A law firm contacts you with what looks like an official letter. There's a genuine inheritance from a distant relative who passed away last year. The paperwork looks solid: correct names, a verifiable date of death, a reasonable amount. To receive the money, you need to sign papers with a notary. But the firm first asks for a sum in “advance registration fees.”", "question": "What's wrong with this very realistic-looking scenario?", "options": [ "If all the paperwork looks in order, it must be real", "Registration fees get paid AFTER an estate is settled, never before. That's a scam signal even when everything else checks out", "Real notaries sometimes ask for a deposit to open a file" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "This is the hard version of the trap: the scammer genuinely did their homework - a real relative, a real death, a believable amount. But they insist on an advance payment. A real notary never operates that way. The move: consult a notary local to where the death occurred yourself, never the one the other party suggests.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r06" ] }, { "id": "argent-c-08", "category": "argent", "level": 3, "situation": "A company registered in the official business registry - you can verify it yourself - offers a structured investment plan. You put in a set amount, and over five years you're promised a fixed annual payout, GUARANTEED. The structure is legal, the paperwork is current, and the registered address is real.", "question": "Why stay cautious despite this appearance of legality?", "options": [ "If it's officially registered, there's no risk at all", "A written guarantee is always legally binding no matter what", "No annuity can truly be guaranteed; if the company collapses or turns out to be a scam, the guarantee disappears with it. Being legally registered doesn't prove financial soundness" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Being legally registered isn't the same as being honest or financially stable. A scammer can set up a genuine company purely to disappear after collecting everyone's money. Written “guarantees” are worthless once the money is gone. The move: look for real financial history, independent reviews, and complaints filed with regulators.", "reflexes": [ "r05", "r10" ] }, { "id": "argent-c-09", "category": "argent", "level": 3, "situation": "You bought something online. An email announces: “Refund approved. Download your payment confirmation to finalize it.” The link leads to a secure-looking page. A few minutes later, you get a call from what looks like an official number, asking you to confirm the refund by giving your account number.", "question": "What doesn't add up here, despite everything looking legitimate?", "options": [ "It's normal to need an extra confirmation step", "The combined process - an email followed by a call demanding personal data - is suspicious. No platform needs TWO separate steps for a simple refund", "If the page looks secure and the call seems official, it really must be the platform" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "This one's subtle: each step looks plausible on its own, but together they form a trap. Email followed by phone call is a classic pattern for a more sophisticated scam. A real platform would send you a single email and stop there. The move: never give banking details over a phone call, even one that sounds completely official.", "reflexes": [ "r10", "r02" ] }, { "id": "argent-c-10", "category": "argent", "level": 3, "situation": "Your friend tells you about an investment they made: they put a set amount with a small, local asset management firm. Two years later, they got back a bit more than they put in. They say it's normal - a modest but safe return. You have no idea whether this is a scam or completely legitimate. Your friend clearly has no bad intentions.", "question": "How do you decide, without more information?", "options": [ "It's a scam, because the return is too low to be worth it", "There's no way to decide without checking the company itself - its registration, its certifications, and requesting official documentation. Only verification counts here, not trust in a friend", "If your friend really got the money back, it must be legal" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "This is the ultimate nuanced case: you genuinely can't conclude anything yet. Your friend could have been scammed without realizing it - some scammers pay early “gains” using money from newer members. Or it really could be legitimate. The move: verify the company independently, read the actual contract, and ask exactly where the money is invested.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "images-f-01", "category": "images", "level": 1, "situation": "A message spreads in alarm: “An entire street flooded, with a crocodile swimming between the cars - this happened yesterday, right in the city!” The photo looks sharp and real. Two days later, the very same image circulates for a completely different storm, in a different region. Same street, same crocodile.", "question": "What detail should be an immediate red flag?", "options": [ "How sharp and clear the crocodile looks in the water", "The same photo shows up for two different floods on two different dates", "A flooded street is a flooded street, no matter the date" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "The exact same image showing up for two different disasters is impossible if it's a genuine local photo. Dramatic images get recycled from one event to the next - that's a solid reason to check where it actually came from. Sharpness and a realistic look never prove authenticity.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r03" ] }, { "id": "images-f-02", "category": "images", "level": 1, "situation": "Sasha gets sent a quick clip: a kid jumps on a trampoline and comes down looking much higher than where they started. The video is only three seconds long. Sasha shares it, captioned “look, reversed physics!”", "question": "What's the simplest explanation for what you're seeing?", "options": [ "The kid genuinely bounces higher on the way down", "The trampoline has some kind of secret mechanism", "The video was slowed down or reversed during playback, which changes how the motion reads" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A very short clip showing something physically impossible has often simply been sped up, slowed down, or reversed. Watching it at normal speed changes everything. Simple edits like cutting, speeding up, or reversing footage are some of the easiest, most effective ways to fake something.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r03" ] }, { "id": "images-f-03", "category": "images", "level": 1, "situation": "An image circulates: a white polar bear walking through a snow-covered village among old stone buildings. The caption reads: “Climate change is bringing bears into towns now.” The image looks very sharp. Looking closely, the bear and the buildings don't quite match up - the shadows fall in different directions.", "question": "What jumps out to someone doing a quick check?", "options": [ "Snow-covered old buildings are a classic backdrop", "The shadows aren't consistent - the bear and the village scene clearly don't come from the same photo", "The bear has really beautiful fur" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "When two elements of an image come from different sources, the shadows, lighting, and reflections don't quite line up. It's a detail that rushed composites almost always miss. Checking whether the lighting is consistent is a fast way to spot a fake.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r06" ] }, { "id": "images-f-04", "category": "images", "level": 1, "situation": "A photo circulates: an enormous shark leaping out of the water right next to a crowded beach. The caption: “Unbelievable!” Someone points out that the shark looks huge compared to the swimmers and the water around it. Comparing it to a real shark's actual size and the rest of the scene, the animal has clearly been digitally enlarged.", "question": "What's the right move to catch this without needing any scientific expertise?", "options": [ "Call in a marine biology expert", "Count the pixels making up the shark", "Compare the proportions: a shark that size would have churned up the whole area, not left a clean, gentle splash" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A digitally enlarged animal usually forgets the physical forces it should be creating - water, spray, waves. Just checking for mismatches with the surrounding context (the water stays oddly calm, the swimmers look far too relaxed) is enough. You don't need to judge pixel by pixel, you check whether the physics holds up.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r06" ] }, { "id": "images-f-05", "category": "images", "level": 1, "situation": "A screenshot shows a TV news banner: “URGENT ALERT” in huge red letters, with a slightly pixelated logo and the line “Authorities demand immediate evacuation of the city.” A few hours later, nothing had actually changed.", "question": "What's the most obvious warning sign?", "options": [ "The banner looks roughly made - the letters aren't smooth, the logo isn't quite the right shape", "The authorities really are running an evacuation, it's just not a big deal", "A screenshot is automatically proof that something is true" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "A fake news banner is easy to spot once you look closely: the font won't be quite right, the pixelation will look off, the alignment won't be as clean as a broadcaster's. Real channels follow extremely strict visual standards. A banner that looks homemade is almost always a fabrication.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r02" ] }, { "id": "images-f-06", "category": "images", "level": 1, "situation": "An image shows a child asking: “Mom, why do I have to recycle if it all ends up in the trash anyway?” followed by a misleading answer written underneath. The caption reads: “Kids ask the best questions!” But zoom in on the image, and the text has oddly huge, irregular pixels - the letters aren't even the same height, and some shapes look strange.", "question": "What's the fastest way to check an image like this?", "options": [ "Zoom in on the text to see if the letters look regular, or oddly pixelated", "Count how many people have shared it", "Ask someone whether a child would really ask that question" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Text that's AI-generated or clumsily added afterward tends to have irregular letters, odd inconsistencies, strange pixel patterns. Zooming in on the text itself is a fast way to catch a fake. Real text on a real photo has letters that are consistent and clean.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r03" ] }, { "id": "images-f-07", "category": "images", "level": 1, "situation": "A massive crowd in front of a landmark shows up on social media, captioned “A million people showed up!” But zoom into the image, and the people in the background look blurry, duplicated, oddly repeated. Some faces look strangely identical to each other.", "question": "What technical detail is a big warning sign here?", "options": [ "Crowds are always a bit blurry in the background", "The people at the back are blurry AND appear to be the same section of crowd, digitally copy-pasted over and over", "A million is a perfectly ordinary number to use" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Artificially inflating a crowd by copy-pasting sections of it creates strange repetitions and messes up the sense of depth. Real gatherings have natural variation; faked ones have visual clones. It's easy to catch just by zooming in.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r06" ] }, { "id": "images-f-08", "category": "images", "level": 1, "situation": "A photo shows two landscapes side by side: on the left, a lush green mountain; on the right, the same mountain, but bare, grey, and battered. Caption: “Before and after - what climate change is doing.” But the left photo was taken on a sunny day in golden light, and the right one on a grey, overcast day.", "question": "What's the biggest visual trick here?", "options": [ "Two photos are just two photos, nothing more to it", "A grey mountain is naturally always going to look less appealing", "The lighting and conditions aren't remotely comparable - golden light versus grey overcast changes the ENTIRE look of a scene" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A fair before-and-after needs the same lighting, the same angle, the same season. When the light changes this dramatically - golden versus grey - you can't tell whether it's the climate creating the effect, or just the photographer's timing. Checking whether the conditions are actually comparable is how you check whether the comparison is honest.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r06" ] }, { "id": "images-f-09", "category": "images", "level": 1, "situation": "A photo of a street devastated by an earthquake circulates with the caption: “Disaster struck the region yesterday, everything's collapsing!” Someone runs a reverse image search and discovers the photo had already been used in an article about a completely different earthquake, two years earlier.", "question": "What's the most important thing the reverse search revealed?", "options": [ "That the street really was in ruins", "That the image wasn't new - it had already circulated for a different disaster two years earlier", "That reverse image searches are basically useless" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A reverse image search shows a photo's whole history: where it's been published, when, and for what event. It's the single most powerful move for catching recycled images. In seconds, you know whether you're looking at something fresh or something repurposed.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02" ] }, { "id": "images-f-10", "category": "images", "level": 1, "situation": "An image shows a rare, striking weather phenomenon: a cloud shaped like a giant ring, with an almost perfect circular gap in the middle. The caption claims it's evidence of secret weather manipulation. A quick check shows this kind of cloud is a real, documented natural phenomenon.", "question": "What's the lesson here?", "options": [ "Captions that sound scientific are always accurate", "The image is authentic - this type of cloud genuinely exists, it's just a rare natural phenomenon", "If an image looks this rare, it has to be fake" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Not everything is faked. Reality can be strange and rare all on its own. Before calling something fake, check whether there's a natural explanation first. This cloud formation is spectacular, genuine, and well documented. The lesson: checking isn't about rejecting everything unusual, it's about understanding it.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "images-m-01", "category": "images", "level": 2, "situation": "After a major flood, a photo circulates showing cars swept away by a wall of dark water. The caption: “Look what storms do now!” A reverse image search shows the exact same photo circulated five years earlier, for a completely different flood, in a different region. Same composition, same cars, same angle.", "question": "What move should have happened before sharing this?", "options": [ "Count how many people had already shared it", "Judge whether the water in the photo looks normal", "Run a reverse image search to check the photo's history and where it was actually taken" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Dramatic images are the champions of recycling. A reverse image search (through any common search engine's image tool) shows in seconds everywhere a photo has already circulated. It's the single most powerful move before sharing an alarming image.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02" ] }, { "id": "images-m-02", "category": "images", "level": 2, "situation": "A short video shows a dog racing across a park at an almost unbelievable speed. Caption: “Fastest dog in the world, filmed yesterday right in our city!” In the comments, everyone's amazed - nobody seems to notice that the people walking in the background are also moving oddly fast.", "question": "What should catch your eye first?", "options": [ "The whole scene is moving too fast, not just the dog - the video is probably sped up", "The dog's breed - some breeds really are known for their speed, so it's plausible", "The view count - at this many views, a fake would already have been called out" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Speeding up footage is the simplest trick in the book - no fancy software required. The tell usually hides around the edges: passersby, leaves, cars, everything following the same unnatural rhythm. The move: find the original version and compare the speed. And popularity has never once validated anything.", "reflexes": [ "r04" ] }, { "id": "images-m-03", "category": "images", "level": 2, "situation": "A striking, high-quality image shows an elephant with shimmering, butterfly-like wings. It's mesmerizing. Caption: “New species discovered in the rainforest!” The image looks extremely smooth and polished. Zooming in on the wings, the details lack any natural texture, and the light reflections don't follow consistent physics.", "question": "What combination of clues should make you skeptical?", "options": [ "It's stunningly beautiful, AND the combined clues - missing texture, odd reflections, unreal smoothness - point to AI generation", "If it's high quality, it must be authentic", "A beautiful image is a real image" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "An AI-generated image often has a suspicious “smoothness” - the details lack natural irregularity, and the textures are too clean. Looking for a combination of clues (texture, reflections, whether the physics holds together) is enough to catch it. No image this perfect, this polished, and this close to magic is ever genuine.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r06" ] }, { "id": "images-m-04", "category": "images", "level": 2, "situation": "A photo shows a little girl smiling in front of a chalkboard. The board reads: “I helped 100 people today!” The caption gushes: “The innocence that's changing the world!” But the font on the board looks digitally generated, the letters aren't handwritten, and the shadow of the text doesn't match the direction of the light falling on her face.", "question": "What's the problem here?", "options": [ "A child genuinely helping that many people", "The text was digitally added to the photo afterward - the clues (a generated-looking font, a mismatched shadow) give it away", "The chalkboard exists in the photo, so the claim must be true" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Adding text to a photo afterward is technically detectable: the text's shadow doesn't match the rest of the scene, and the font looks stamped on rather than naturally written. Checking whether the shadows and lighting are consistent is how you catch additions like this.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r03" ] }, { "id": "images-m-05", "category": "images", "level": 2, "situation": "In the middle of a heated debate about school lunches, a ten-second clip circulates: the principal walks out of a parents' meeting partway through, looking annoyed. Caption: “She won't even listen to the families!” The clip cuts off right as she reaches the door.", "question": "What move changes everything here?", "options": [ "Find the full recording of the meeting, to see what happened before and after", "Check how sharp the footage is - a blurry clip is often a faked one", "Count how many parents in the room look like they approve of her leaving" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Ten seconds pulled out of an hour-long meeting can make a scene say almost anything - you don't see what was said right before, or whether she came back two minutes later. A very short clip paired with a very confident caption is exactly the signal to go find the full version. Context is the judge here, not the clip.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r02" ] }, { "id": "images-m-06", "category": "images", "level": 2, "situation": "A photo circulates showing crumbling ruins in a very old coastal town. Caption: “Coastal towns being abandoned because of climate change!” But checking the context, the photo was actually taken at a controlled archaeological dig site, and it's about 30 years old.", "question": "What should have been checked first?", "options": [ "Whether the ruins are genuinely old", "The date and original context of the photo - where it was taken, by whom, and for what purpose", "How sharp and clear the ruins look in the photo" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A completely real photo of a completely real ruin can still lie to you if its context gets swapped out. An archaeology photo becomes “proof” of climate disaster purely because of the caption attached to it. Always check: who took this, when, where, and why. Context changes everything.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02" ] }, { "id": "images-m-07", "category": "images", "level": 2, "situation": "An image shows a giant elephant walking between city buildings. Obviously impossible. But zooming in, the elephant was clearly lifted from one real photo and pasted onto a real cityscape. Both pieces come from genuine sources - they've just been falsely combined.", "question": "What move reveals the trick?", "options": [ "Ask whether elephants live in cities", "Judge whether the elephant's pixels match the city's", "Search each element separately - look up the elephant and the city on their own to see if they trace back to different sources" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A composite can be built from two completely real images from two completely real sources. The elephant is real, the city is real, but put together, the whole thing is fake. A reverse search on each key element can reveal they come from different photos, taken at different times and in different places.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r02" ] }, { "id": "images-m-08", "category": "images", "level": 2, "situation": "A photo shows a dinosaur-like creature walking down a road. Clearly biologically impossible. But looking closely, the animal's texture is slightly different from the background, the shadows don't quite align, and there's a faint pixel-level glitch right where the two would meet.", "question": "What's the right read on this?", "options": [ "It's a composite or an edited photo - the technical details (texture, shadows, pixels) don't hold together", "It's a genuine animal", "The pixels are all perfectly consistent" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Good composites give themselves away once you check: do the shadows actually line up? Does the subject's texture match the background's? Are there odd glitches where the two pieces meet? Even a well-made composite always forgets something.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r06" ] }, { "id": "images-m-09", "category": "images", "level": 2, "situation": "A screenshot circulates showing a well-known news channel's on-screen banner announcing: “ALERT: meteor approaching.” The font looks slightly off, the alignment isn't quite clean. At first glance, the message still seems fairly credible. A few hours later, the actual channel denies ever airing it.", "question": "What signal should raise doubt first?", "options": [ "The banner has small flaws - an odd font, imperfect alignment - and real TV banners are VERY tightly controlled", "A broadcast banner is automatically authentic", "The channel is the one announcing the alert, so it must be true" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "A TV channel's visual standards are relentless - every font, every color, every pixel follows strict house rules. A homemade banner will always carry small flaws somewhere. Before believing a dramatic banner, a trained eye checks: is the font exactly right? Is the alignment perfectly clean?", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r02" ] }, { "id": "images-m-10", "category": "images", "level": 2, "situation": "A photo captures someone mid-flip at the peak of a gymnastics move, set against a glowing sunset. The image is stunning. But rather than being staged or edited, it's simply a real photo of a real moment that happened to line up with perfect lighting. Everything about it is genuine.", "question": "What's the lesson here?", "options": [ "The image is authentic - reality can be just as spectacular as any composite, especially under the right conditions", "Every spectacular-looking image is generated or edited", "If an image looks this spectacular, it must be fake" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Not every spectacular image is fake. Reality, especially with the right conditions - light, angle, talent - can be genuinely extraordinary. The lesson: checking isn't about rejecting everything, it's about understanding what you're looking at. Before calling something fake, look for a normal explanation first.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "images-c-01", "category": "images", "level": 3, "situation": "An AI-generated image shows a flawless portrait of a woman standing in a forest. The AI work is excellent - the skin texture looks almost perfect, the hair looks real, the expression is natural. But looking closely at the eyes, the light reflections there don't follow the same logic as the reflections in her hair or the trees. Also, her hands have an odd number of fingers.", "question": "What's the trap in this case?", "options": [ "Perfectly rendered eyes are always a sign of authenticity", "If an image looks flawless, it must be real", "The AI is so good here that you need to hunt for subtle inconsistencies - conflicting reflections, odd hands - rather than judging by overall impression" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "The best generative AI still forgets small details: reflections that should be consistent across the whole image, hands with the wrong number of fingers, textures that don't quite behave the same way everywhere. The move: hunt for subtle inconsistencies instead of being swept up by the overall quality.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r06" ] }, { "id": "images-c-02", "category": "images", "level": 3, "situation": "A photo circulates from a religious gathering, showing a glowing “apparition” in the sky. Caption: “Look at this miracle!” The photo looks genuine, shot on an older camera. But when people ask for other shots of the same moment, only this single one ever turns up. Also, the light in the sky has no logical source - nothing in the scene that would actually create it.", "question": "What move should have raised doubts among the first people who shared this?", "options": [ "Look for other angles of the same event - something witnessed by a crowd usually produces several photos, from different angles", "A photo shot on an older camera is automatically proof of age", "Apparitions like this are always genuine" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "An event witnessed by a crowd of people normally produces several photos, from several angles. Zero other photos of the exact same moment is already suspicious on its own. Also worth checking: where is that light actually coming from? Is there a logical source for it? A magical light with no source behind it is usually a sign of editing.", "reflexes": [ "r05", "r02" ] }, { "id": "images-c-03", "category": "images", "level": 3, "situation": "A three-minute video of someone playing guitar circulates online. The video quality looks ordinary, the audio has authentic-sounding background noise, and the person's movements look completely natural. But the video is actually generated from start to finish: the fingers move with an almost mathematical precision, the audio was generated to match, and a handful of pixels show tiny inconsistencies.", "question": "What's the real challenge in a case like this?", "options": [ "High-quality video fakes like this are genuinely hard to catch without specialized tools - you need to trace the video's origin and check its metadata", "If it runs three minutes long, it must be real", "A long video is automatically authentic" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "The best fake videos are now genuinely difficult to catch with the naked eye. The real check happens elsewhere: trace the source, look at the metadata, follow the sharing history. Ask: who posted this first? When? On what device? Metadata often tells a very different story than the video itself.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02" ] }, { "id": "images-c-04", "category": "images", "level": 3, "situation": "A composite photo circulates: a mountain landscape at sunrise, with a bright aurora glowing above it. Spectacular. Each piece - the mountain, the sunrise, the aurora - comes from a real, genuine photo taken in a real place. But auroras are never visible at sunrise; the two are optically incompatible. The composite mixed real photos together in a way that couldn't actually happen.", "question": "What's the trap in this case?", "options": [ "Each piece is real, so the combination must be real too", "It's a composite of genuinely real images, but physically impossible - you never see an aurora and a sunrise together, because of the brightness difference", "Auroras are always this spectacular-looking" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A composite can be built entirely from real photos taken from real sources, and still create something that could never actually happen. The check: does the physics of the scene actually hold up? Is there a light source that contradicts another part of the image? An aurora next to a sunrise is a physical impossibility.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r06" ] }, { "id": "images-c-05", "category": "images", "level": 3, "situation": "A photo appears to show a well-known figure in a compromising situation. It's a brilliant piece of editing - modified pixel by pixel to place the person somewhere they never actually were. Zooming into certain details, there are extremely subtle inconsistencies in the reflections and lighting, but they're barely visible.", "question": "What's the real challenge here?", "options": [ "Perfect shadows and reflections always mean an image is real", "A photo is always authentic by default", "The finest edits are nearly impossible to catch by eye alone - the real move is to trace the image's source and check with the person or their official representatives" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A pixel-perfect edit made by a skilled professional is nearly undetectable to the naked eye. The real defense: trace the source, and check with the person themselves or a trusted third party - their team, their official accounts. Never share something like this without checking with the person it shows.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "images-c-06", "category": "images", "level": 3, "situation": "An image shows an extraordinary, rare natural phenomenon: a near-perfect tower-shaped ice formation on a mountainside. The photo looks genuine, clearly shot with good equipment. You search and find absolutely nothing online about it - no mention anywhere, no source. But this kind of formation does genuinely exist; it's just extremely rare.", "question": "What dilemma does this case create?", "options": [ "If something is this rare, it must be true", "There's no way to decide either way - the image COULD be authentic (the phenomenon is real) or composited (rarity makes it hard to verify). The honest move is to keep searching and admit the uncertainty if nothing turns up", "If something is this rare, it must be fake" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Some images are simply near-impossible to verify without outside sources to compare against. The lesson: it's completely fine to say “I don't know yet” and keep looking longer. Admitting you can't decide is its own form of intelligence.", "reflexes": [ "r10", "r02" ] }, { "id": "images-c-07", "category": "images", "level": 3, "situation": "A video shows a street demonstration with a huge crowd. It's been skillfully edited to strip out all context - you don't see any of the signs, you don't hear who's speaking, just a mass of people. It's captioned with a completely different explanation for what's happening. The rest of the original footage tells a totally different story.", "question": "What basic move got skipped here?", "options": [ "If you can see the crowd, you already know what they want", "A crowd video is automatically proof of something", "Search for the COMPLETE video and its context - who's speaking, what the signs say, what the original event was actually about" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A video stripped of its context - the signs, the speeches, the original reason people gathered - can be twisted into meaning the opposite of what actually happened. Searching for the full video and its context is the move that gets skipped almost every time.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r03" ] }, { "id": "images-c-08", "category": "images", "level": 3, "situation": "A photo appears to show a genuine moment of one stranger helping another on the street. The caption leans hard into the emotion. But digging deeper, it turns out to be a staged shot - paid actors performing a heartwarming scene for a commercial or ad campaign.", "question": "What move should have raised a flag before this got shared?", "options": [ "Search for who took the photo, where it originally came from, and whether it's linked to a professional production or film", "A photo of someone helping a stranger is always genuine", "If it shows a real physical action, it must be true" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Scenes performed by actors can look completely authentic. The move: search for the origin - who posted it first? Is it tied to a production, a film, a campaign? That connection is often findable somewhere if you look.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "images-c-09", "category": "images", "level": 3, "situation": "An image shows a futuristic city with impossibly tall buildings stretching into the sky. It's clearly AI-generated. But the caption claims: “A revolutionary architecture project, officially approved by the city.” The image itself is obviously AI, but the caption is manufacturing a false stamp of legitimacy.", "question": "What's the main trap here?", "options": [ "The image is clearly AI-generated, but the caption can still manufacture false credibility - search for the official project source and check with the actual city", "If a city approves something, it must be real", "A futuristic-looking image always represents a real project" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Even an image that's obviously AI-generated can get turned into “news” if the caption sounds credible enough. The move: search for the source - did the city actually approve this? Is there an official statement, a real announcement anywhere? A caption is not proof of anything on its own.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "images-c-10", "category": "images", "level": 3, "situation": "A photo captures a raw, extraordinary human moment: a child caught in a sandstorm in the desert, found and comforted by someone. The image is striking. A search turns up no official source, no documented story - just the photo, circulating on its own. But a moment like this could genuinely have happened.", "question": "What's the final piece of wisdom here?", "options": [ "There's no way to decide for certain - the image could be authentic (extraordinary moments really do happen) OR composited (there's no source to confirm it). Honesty means admitting the uncertainty and searching further", "If something looks this extraordinary, it must be true", "No source means it's automatically fake" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Not every unsourced image is fake. Reality genuinely produces moments that look almost too perfect to be real. The real skill here: keep searching actively, admit when you don't know, and never claim certainty without something to back it up.", "reflexes": [ "r10", "r02" ] }, { "id": "experts-f-01", "category": "experts", "level": 1, "situation": "On a video channel, a man in a white coat presents his “wellness clinic” from a small office with potted plants and a framed diploma on the wall. He claims vaccines weaken the immune system and his supplements “restore your natural defenses.” He introduces himself as “doctor.”", "question": "What's the first doubt you should have?", "options": [ "The fact that he sells supplements directly on his own page", "The source of his doctorate and what his actual field of expertise is", "The white coat and medical decor, which create an atmosphere of seriousness" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A white coat and a tidy office prove nothing. The key question: is he really a doctor? In what field? Medicine, biology, business? What are his sources on immunity? A real specialist cites studies and admits complexity. The classic move here: impress people with appearances to skip past verification.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r02" ] }, { "id": "experts-f-02", "category": "experts", "level": 1, "situation": "A website promises “Certified training in holistic nutrition: become an expert in three months, diploma included.” The page shows happy testimonials and a very official-looking seal. For $500, you get a digital folder and a PDF certificate.", "question": "What signal should make you pump the brakes immediately?", "options": [ "The very affordable price for such a short course", "The promise of becoming an “expert” after just three months", "The fact that it's an online course rather than in person" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "No serious institution mints experts in three months for a quick payment. Real accreditation comes from recognized universities or professional boards, takes years, and has to be earned. These private “academies” borrow the prestige of a title — “certified,” “diploma” — to sell something. The move: check whether the institution genuinely exists and is officially recognized.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r06" ] }, { "id": "experts-f-03", "category": "experts", "level": 1, "situation": "An influencer with 1.2 million followers, known for lifestyle content, launches his “digital detox method.” He claims: “Phones are destroying your brain, and I'm here to undo the damage.” He's selling a one-week program for $79.", "question": "What's the actual problem here?", "options": [ "He's an influencer, so of course he's just after the money", "He's only offering seven days, which isn't long enough to really fix anything", "He has no scientific training to back up the claim that phones “destroy” the brain" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A huge follower count grabs attention, but popularity isn't a qualification. This influencer has no background in neuroscience or mental health. His claim — “destroying” — is enormous, with zero nuance. The move: ask for his sources, check his real background, cross-check against what actual neuroscientists say.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r02" ] }, { "id": "experts-f-04", "category": "experts", "level": 1, "situation": "A video is making the rounds: a woman says, “I'm an independent researcher, I don't belong to any institution — that's how I stay free.” She claims to have discovered that water has “memory” and communicates with us. Her videos are shot like documentaries.", "question": "Why doesn't “independent” automatically mean “trustworthy”?", "options": [ "Because a real discovery gets published in scientific journals and goes through peer review, not straight onto a video platform", "Because institutions always control what counts as the truth", "Because a lone researcher inevitably works less carefully than a team" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "“Independent” can mean honest — but it can also mean no oversight, no peer review, no rigorous protocol. A genuinely respected researcher can absolutely work solo, but their work still gets published, cited, and debated in the open. Here: zero institution, zero scientific publication, just a polished production. The move: look for her actual publications, her collaborators, where she studied.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r05" ] }, { "id": "experts-f-05", "category": "experts", "level": 1, "situation": "An online coaching page reads: “Dr. Marina helps you rebuild your confidence. Expert in positive psychology, nominated for an Emotional Innovation Award.” You click “learn more” and find no biography at all — just “15 years of experience.”", "question": "What lets you doubt this without turning suspicious of everything?", "options": [ "A real credential names the institution and the training behind it, not just the word “expert”", "An innovation award is always a scam", "She's a woman, and women are less credible in science" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "“Nominated for an award” — you don't know who created that award or whether it's even real. A real psychologist names her degree, her university, her publications. “Expert in positive psychology” with no source given is impossible to check. The missing biography is itself a signal. The move: search academic databases, professional directories, and ask for her exact background.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r02" ] }, { "id": "experts-f-06", "category": "experts", "level": 1, "situation": "An article shares a quote: “Sugar is, in my view, exactly a poison — just like drugs.” It's credited to “a well-known nutritionist.” You look for a source: nothing. Later you find the real quote: “Sugar in excess can have effects that resemble those of drugs, though it's obviously different.”", "question": "How does this fake version mislead you?", "options": [ "It doesn't matter much as long as the overall message is roughly right", "It makes you believe an expert backs an extreme position he doesn't actually hold", "It's shorter, so it's more convenient to share" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Quoting someone partially, or inventing words for them, completely changes the meaning. A nuanced statement (“effects that resemble”) becomes an absolute one (“exactly a poison”). This is a classic manipulation: you think an authority backs you up, but you're wrong. The move: always track down the primary source, not the relayed version, and read the full context.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r08" ] }, { "id": "experts-f-07", "category": "experts", "level": 1, "situation": "A post's headline reads: “A study shows that kids who read less than 30 minutes a day lose 15% of their vocabulary.” It's shared everywhere. You look for the original study: nowhere to be found. One site admits “probably based on an old study somewhere in Northern Europe, but it can't be located.”", "question": "What's the main problem here?", "options": [ "A claim this precise must be coming from a real source", "Kids read less today than they used to, so the finding must be accurate", "The 15% figure might be false or taken out of context" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "“A study shows” with no source ever provided is a red flag. A real specialist always cites the study — author, year, journal. This is probably a distortion, a rumor, or outright fiction. The oddly precise number, 15%, makes it feel more credible than it is. The move: always demand the source, not just the summary floating around.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r08" ] }, { "id": "experts-f-08", "category": "experts", "level": 1, "situation": "An article claims: “The Global Academy of Holistic Health recommends avoiding all dairy products — they cause massive inflammation.” The author is billed as an “affiliated researcher.” You look up the Academy: it's a private outfit with no independent experts listed, just a storefront website.", "question": "What should you check before believing this recommendation?", "options": [ "Whether the Academy actually exists and is officially recognized by health authorities", "Whether dairy products can genuinely cause inflammation (in some cases, they can)", "Whether the author also sells dairy-free products on the same site" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "An official-sounding name — “Global Academy” — proves nothing without verifiable accreditation, a list of independent experts, or reviewed publications. This is a front. The recommendation might even hold for certain people, but presented as universal, it's false. The move: check whether the institution genuinely exists, not just what its website says.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r02" ] }, { "id": "experts-f-09", "category": "experts", "level": 1, "situation": "A chemistry PhD — a real university degree — posts a video: “As a scientist, I'm convinced psychotherapy is a total scam. It's pseudoscience.” His videos are slick and well produced.", "question": "What's your legitimate doubt here?", "options": [ "He has a doctorate, so he must know what he's talking about on any scientific topic", "It's a well-produced video, so the information must be solid", "His expertise in chemistry doesn't automatically make him an expert in psychology or medicine" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A doctorate in chemistry means expertise in chemistry — not psychology. This is a common trap: holding a doctorate in SOMETHING lends credibility, but not everywhere. A genuinely legitimate expert stays honest about the edges of their own field. Psychotherapy rests on decades of empirical research. A blanket claim like “it's a total scam,” coming from outside his field, is a bad sign. The move: check what his actual specialty is.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r01" ] }, { "id": "experts-f-10", "category": "experts", "level": 1, "situation": "A personal-development coach (“Certified International Expert Coach”) writes on his profile: “Since I've trained over 10,000 people in three years, I'm the most followed expert in the field. My scientifically validated approach...” You check his actual background: he started out selling cosmetics.", "question": "What's questionable about how he presents himself?", "options": [ "The fact that he used to sell cosmetics, which makes him untrustworthy", "His “scientifically validated approach,” because coaching can never be scientific", "The 10,000-person figure with no detail at all — who are they, can it be checked — and the leap to “top expert in the field”" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "“Over 10,000 people” — who exactly? Is that checkable anywhere? Switching careers isn't a crime, but this rapid climb — salesman to international expert — is suspicious. The claim “scientifically validated,” applied to coaching with no citations, is vague. Self-declared prestige (“most followed expert”) with no outside proof to back it. The move: look for third-party reviews, publications, independent evidence.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r05" ] }, { "id": "experts-m-01", "category": "experts", "level": 2, "situation": "A chemist publishes a blog post: “As a university-trained chemistry PhD, I can state that climate change is being exaggerated by the media. The data doesn't support this alarmism.” The article is well written, with charts. He genuinely does hold a real doctorate.", "question": "Where's the authority problem hiding here?", "options": [ "His title gives him authority in chemistry, not in climatology, which draws on physics, oceanography, and more", "A chemistry PhD has no right whatsoever to talk about climate", "The article is well written, so the facts must be accurate" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "A chemistry doctorate proves expertise in chemistry: reactions, molecules, structures. Climatology is an interdisciplinary field — astronomy, geology, thermodynamics, atmospheric science. This is the trap: his real competence (chemistry) lends him prestige, but not on climate. A genuine climate specialist would point to the broad scientific consensus among the actual experts in that field. The move: check his EXACT field and cross-check against the consensus of real specialists in the subject.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r05" ] }, { "id": "experts-m-02", "category": "experts", "level": 2, "situation": "A website calls itself “The World Institute for Nutrition Research.” The page shows an impressive seal and a team of 12 people in lab coats. You look up the registered headquarters: it's a PO box. Not one of the “researchers” has a page on any academic publication database.", "question": "What's the key move to confirm whether this institute genuinely exists?", "options": [ "Look up the affiliated researchers on an academic database and see if their publications actually cite this institute", "The impressive seal is proof enough that it's legitimate", "Check on a map that the headquarters physically exists" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "A real institute has researchers who publish and get cited. Academic databases are the global record of that. Zero publications, zero outside citations — it's just decor. A PO box for an address is a signal. A grand official-sounding name — “World,” “Institute,” “Research” — doesn't create legitimacy on its own. The move: look up the “experts'” actual publications, check their real affiliation, cross-check independent sources.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r02" ] }, { "id": "experts-m-03", "category": "experts", "level": 2, "situation": "A health podcast invites “Dr. M., an independent microbiology researcher.” She claims: “Gut bacteria control our mood 100% of the time. That's a scientific fact.” Her site lists certifications like “Advanced Microbiome Researcher.” You look for the source of that certification: no official body exists.", "question": "How do you tell a partial truth (the microbiome affects mood) apart from an exaggerated claim?", "options": [ "If she says “100%,” that must mean it's very reliable", "One of the two claims must be false and the other true, so just trust her sources", "A microbiology PhD can still overreach outside her real field, on the link with psychology" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "It's true: the microbiome and mood are linked. But “100% of the time” is false — it's one factor among many, alongside genetics, life experience, and more. A self-awarded certification with no official accreditation behind it is murky. A real researcher would add nuance and cite studies. The move: recognize when an expert is describing a real link but caricaturing or overselling it.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r05" ] }, { "id": "experts-m-04", "category": "experts", "level": 2, "situation": "A fitness article cites: “According to a study, drinking apple cider vinegar before meals cuts your weight by 20kg in four weeks.” You track down the study: it exists, but it covers 30 people, runs for two months (not four weeks), and reports “an average reduction of 2.5kg.” The quote has been chopped up.", "question": "What's your best lever for checking this claim?", "options": [ "The 20kg figure sounds enormous, so it's worth checking whether it holds up", "Trust the article since it cites a study at all — that's better than nothing", "Find the original study and compare it against what's written here" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A study does exist, but it's being misquoted: the timeframe is shortened, the result inflated (2.5kg becomes 20kg?), the tiny sample (30 people) hidden. This is a lie by distortion. The move: always read the original source, not the relayed version. A real nutrition expert would openly admit the modest size of the effect and the study's limits.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r08" ] }, { "id": "experts-m-05", "category": "experts", "level": 2, "situation": "A health article states: “Dr. L., a world-renowned dermatology expert, says washing your hands more than twice a day destroys your skin.” It's attributed to a dermatologist who genuinely exists. You find his real statement: he said “washing your hands excessively AND skipping moisturizer afterward can damage the skin's lipid barrier.” His actual words carry real nuance.", "question": "What just happened here?", "options": [ "The doctor changed his mind, and the article is quoting his older position", "His statement was oversimplified and twisted: a nuance turned into a dogma", "The dermatologist was misquoted, but the overall message still holds up" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A real expert exists, which creates an illusion of authority. But his words have been bent out of shape: “excessive AND no moisturizer” becomes “twice a day is bad.” This is manipulative. Quoting a real expert but distorting them is more convincing — and more dangerous — than inventing a fake one. The move: find the actual quote, always in its original context.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r08" ] }, { "id": "experts-m-06", "category": "experts", "level": 2, "situation": "An article on education claims: “According to neurologists, multitasking destroys children's learning ability. Experts unanimously agree.” You dig in: some studies suggest this, others qualify it or contradict it outright. The consensus is far from unanimous.", "question": "What trap is hiding in this kind of language?", "options": [ "“Unanimous” can simply mean most experts agree", "If some studies suggest it, that's proof it's true", "The claim that multitasking “destroys” learning is far too absolute without knowing the real context — what age group? what kind of tasks?" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "“Unanimous,” “experts say,” “scientifically proven,” without ever naming a single expert or study, is vague by design. In reality, neuroscientists hold different positions on multitasking in children. A genuine specialist shows the debate, not a fake unanimity. The move: check whether a real consensus exists, and if so, who disagrees with it.", "reflexes": [ "r05", "r08" ] }, { "id": "experts-m-07", "category": "experts", "level": 2, "situation": "An investment e-book states: “Financial analyst Aaron K. recommends: buy gold, it's the only real protection against inflation.” Searching online, you find an Aaron K. who runs a discussion group on a finance forum — but no official accreditation anywhere: no license, no trace in any registry of recognized professionals.", "question": "Why is a realistic-sounding name with no official verification a red flag?", "options": [ "Because real financial analysts always keep a low profile online", "Because it could be literally anyone named Aaron K., not necessarily a recognized financial analyst", "Because a forum post is more honest than a professional page" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "“Aaron K., financial analyst” — who is he, exactly? Where did he study? Is he registered with any regulator? With no official verification, this is empty. Anyone can claim to be an analyst. A real professional links their name to an institution, a university, an established firm. An absolute recommendation — “the only protection” — with no mention of diversifying is suspicious on its own. The move: check for official accreditation — a license, registration with financial authorities.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r08" ] }, { "id": "experts-m-08", "category": "experts", "level": 2, "situation": "A video claims: “Professor K., PhD in biology from a major university, explains why 5G signals make people sick. She has 250,000 followers and shows off her diplomas on camera.” You dig in: she does hold a real biology doctorate, BUT in a very narrow field — the cellular biology of yeast. No publications on electromagnetism or public health. Her claims about 5G contradict the findings of major international health bodies.", "question": "How do you explain this mismatch?", "options": [ "She has a real doctorate, but in a different field entirely — cellular biology isn't public health or electromagnetism. Plenty of people confuse “has a doctorate” with “expert on everything.”", "Official health organizations must be hiding the truth, so she's probably right", "She's lying about her expertise" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "A doctorate in cellular biology doesn't equal expertise in electromagnetism or public health. This is the prestige trap: “professor” just sounds credible. Her real field — yeast — has no connection to radio waves. The fact that she contradicts the consensus of major health agencies is a bad sign. The move: check her PRECISE field, look up her actual publications, compare against the independent consensus.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r05" ] }, { "id": "experts-m-09", "category": "experts", "level": 2, "situation": "A site sells “certified training in neuro-linguistic programming (NLP)”: “Get certified in three months with our experts.” One of the trainers holds a genuine credential — licensed clinical psychologist. But NLP isn't a recognized academic discipline; it's a commercial practice. Universities don't treat it as science.", "question": "What's the problem here?", "options": [ "The course only takes three months, so it can't be serious", "A licensed clinical psychologist is teaching it, so the course must be legitimate", "A credentialed expert in ONE field — clinical psychology — is lending prestige to a different field, NLP, that has no scientific accreditation behind it" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A clinical psychologist has genuine training and oversight behind their title. But NLP, despite its scientific-sounding name, isn't recognized by universities as a science. It has followers, but no consensus. A real psychologist teaching NLP lends their own legitimacy to something fringe. The move: check whether the discipline being taught is academically recognized — not just whether the instructor has an impressive title elsewhere.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r02" ] }, { "id": "experts-m-10", "category": "experts", "level": 2, "situation": "A well-sourced article cites a “researcher at a major university, a specialist in network sociology.” You confirm the researcher is real and genuinely affiliated. But his publications mostly cover group dynamics inside companies, not social media. The article uses him to claim “social media creates isolation.” It's a related topic, but not his actual field.", "question": "How do you navigate this?", "options": [ "His subject — workplace group dynamics — is close enough to social media, so it's valid", "A researcher affiliated with a university is trustworthy by default, so ignore that detail about his exact field", "Check what he's actually studied. Do his publications discuss social media, or something else? Look for a real specialist in this precise subject." ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "University affiliation: a good sign. But his publications are about workplace group dynamics. The article jumps from office teams to social media without him ever having studied that. This is prestige-borrowing. A genuine expert in the sociology of social media would have specific publications in that exact area. The move: read what he's actually published, not just his title. Find someone who has genuinely worked on this precise subject.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r02" ] }, { "id": "experts-c-01", "category": "experts", "level": 3, "situation": "A pediatrician affiliated with a major public hospital speaks on the radio: “I prescribe childhood vaccines every day, and I strongly recommend them, following established protocols. But parents should ask questions, understand the real side effects — rare but possible — and make an informed choice.” It's nuanced, fact-based, and modest about its own limits.", "question": "What should you make of this?", "options": [ "This is a real pediatrician speaking with full legitimacy in his field, with caution and respect for patient autonomy", "This is an expert clearly trying to manipulate parents by planting doubt", "The pediatrician should never mention side effects at all — that part is false" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "WATCH OUT: real expertise does exist. A pediatrician at a public hospital has studied, practices, and follows the evidence. Speaking from genuine competence, adding nuance about real (if rare) risks, and respecting a patient's right to be informed — that's LEGITIMATE. The danger isn't “all expertise,” it's fake authorities, exaggerations, and non-specialists overreaching. The move: recognize when authority is REAL and well exercised. Don't turn paranoid about everything.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r01" ] }, { "id": "experts-c-02", "category": "experts", "level": 3, "situation": "A message is circulating: “An internationally awarded virologist says masks don't protect you.” You look into it. The virologist is real, has genuine publications, is respected. BUT re-reading his actual statements in interviews and articles, he says: “Simple surgical masks offer limited protection to the wearer, but they reduce how much the wearer spreads to others. It's complicated.” His real position is nuanced; the quote twists it into an absolute claim.", "question": "What's the risk here?", "options": [ "Confusing a “nuanced claim” with an “absolute claim” by misquoting someone genuinely credible", "Award-winning experts are always honest", "A real expert, even an award-winner, can still be wrong" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "The trap here: using a REAL, credible expert but quoting him falsely. That's more dangerous than a fake expert. People tell themselves “a recognized virologist says X,” without checking that he actually said “Y, but it's complicated.” The move: always look for the full quote, even for genuine experts. Learn to tell “nuanced” apart from “distorted.”", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r08" ] }, { "id": "experts-c-03", "category": "experts", "level": 3, "situation": "An article claims: “According to an independent researcher who studied 15,000 patients over ten years, therapy X cures 80% of cases of disorder Y.” You check: the researcher is real, has genuinely published, and has an impressive dataset. BUT his work has never gone through peer review — no scientific journal involved. How do you judge this?", "question": "What's your dilemma here?", "options": [ "An independent researcher with ten years of study must be trustworthy", "Publications with no peer review are worthless — this is a fake expert", "This is a huge body of work that deserves scrutiny, but the lack of peer review limits its credibility. No firm conclusion without verification." ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "There's no clean answer here. The work looks serious — massive data, long duration, documented rigor. BUT without peer review, nobody knows if the method holds up, whether the results are due to chance, or whether bias crept in. It's fair to say “interesting, but not yet validated.” The researcher isn't a fake expert — he genuinely did the work — but his conclusions lack outside confirmation. The move: acknowledge the uncertainty, check whether anyone else has replicated or critiqued it.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r05" ] }, { "id": "experts-c-04", "category": "experts", "level": 3, "situation": "An article states: “Dr. S., a recognized chemist, says psychotherapy is 100% ineffective — that's a scientific fact.” It's attributed to a real Dr. S., who has solid publications in organic chemistry and writes opinion columns. But you find: his writing on psychotherapy is never scientific — just opinions posted on a blog. And the actual science shows that certain psychotherapies do have evidence behind them.", "question": "How would you describe this case?", "options": [ "Since psychotherapy is complex, nobody has the right to say it's ineffective", "A chemist can never be allowed to comment on psychotherapy — that's off-limits", "An expert in his own field (chemistry) is weighing in on a different field (psychology) with no scientific data behind him, just an opinion" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "The chemist has every right to voice an opinion on psychology — that's free speech. But you shouldn't confuse his expertise (chemistry) with a claim that contradicts the consensus. He hasn't studied psychology, hasn't published on the subject, shows no evidence. His dogmatism — “100% ineffective” — contradicts meta-analyses done by actual psychologists. The move: when someone from one field makes a strong claim about another, look for the consensus among real experts in that second field.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r05" ] }, { "id": "experts-c-05", "category": "experts", "level": 3, "situation": "A site claims: “The Northern Institute for Advanced Studies has discovered...” You check. The institute is real, genuinely affiliated with a university, and has an official site. BUT the discovery it's announcing has never been published in any peer-reviewed journal. Its own site is the only source anywhere. Nearby universities never mention it.", "question": "What do you do when a seemingly legitimate structure makes one isolated, unverifiable claim?", "options": [ "If the site looks professional, it must be true", "Check whether other independent bodies have verified or cited it. A major discovery spreads, gets replicated, gets cited.", "The university affiliation guarantees the claim, so it must be true" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "University affiliation: a plus. Professional site: a plus. BUT a real discovery gets published in a vetted journal, gets discussed by other researchers, provokes reactions. If it exists only on THEIR site and nowhere else, that's suspicious. Maybe the study is still ongoing, maybe a journal rejected it, maybe it simply doesn't hold up. The move: check whether other experts are talking about this discovery. Ask “where's the published paper?”", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "experts-c-06", "category": "experts", "level": 3, "situation": "A well-known influencer — a retired former Olympic athlete — launches a podcast about nutrition. He says: “I'm not a doctor, but I've spent 20 years optimizing my body, and I'm going to show you how. Here are my sources: university studies, health agency reports, interviews with registered dietitians.” He genuinely cites his sources, stays careful about his limits, and mostly promotes common sense — fruit, water, rest.", "question": "What's the TRAP here, and what's the VIRTUE?", "options": [ "He's a fake expert, don't listen to him", "An Olympic athlete automatically knows everything about nutrition", "The trap: his athletic prestige creates an implicit authority. The virtue: he admits it, cites his sources, and stays honest about what he doesn't know. That's fine, as long as YOU also go check the sources yourself." ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "This isn't a fake expert — he's a near-expert who is HONEST. He has real-world experience, not a formal degree. The danger would be if he claimed to be a doctor, or if his “sources” turned out to be vague. Here, he plays it straight. You can follow him, BUT: check that his sources actually say what he claims, and also find a real dietitian to compare notes with. The move: accept honest near-experts, but don't let them replace formal science.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "experts-c-07", "category": "experts", "level": 3, "situation": "An article states: “A meta-analysis of 50 studies shows that treatment X works. But one lone researcher believes it's just a placebo.” You dig in: the “lone researcher” is real, has genuine training, but no publications on this specific topic. The meta-analysis comes from a respected journal. How do you settle this?", "question": "What should your first instinct be?", "options": [ "The consensus of 50 studies beats one lone opinion, even though the dissenter has every right to speak up. But stay alert: if he genuinely has evidence for the placebo theory, why hasn't he published it?", "One lone opinion against 50 studies is clearly wrong — ignore him", "A single expert can be right against everyone else" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Mathematically and epistemically: 50 beats 1. But the “1” has every right to doubt, to call out a poorly grounded consensus. The problem: if he genuinely has proof of a placebo effect, why hasn't he published it? No publication means no externalized data. It's fair to listen to the minority view, but with more skepticism than you'd apply to the majority. The move: follow the number of STUDIES, not the number of voices. Meta-analyses beat opinions.", "reflexes": [ "r05", "r08" ] }, { "id": "experts-c-08", "category": "experts", "level": 3, "situation": "A former health minister, who had a solid professional reputation, states after retiring: “Modern medicine kills more than it cures.” He hasn't taken any further training in public health for ten years. But his past title still lends prestige to the claim.", "question": "How should you look at this case?", "options": [ "He may have had real expertise in health policy — that's different from medical science. And ten years without staying current on the subject is a long time. The claim itself is extremely absolute.", "Politicians always lie, so don't listen to him", "A former minister is an expert who obviously knows what he's talking about" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "A past official title — minister — creates prestige. But politics isn't science. He would have overseen health policies, not run studies. A sweeping claim like “kills more than it cures” contradicts the facts — life expectancy keeps rising. If he's criticizing HEALTH POLICY, that's fair game. If he's criticizing MEDICAL SCIENCE itself, he'd need current evidence to back it up. The move: tell apart a political title from scientific expertise. Check whether his criticism targets policy or the science itself.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r01" ] }, { "id": "experts-c-09", "category": "experts", "level": 3, "situation": "A nutrition article states: “According to Dr. T., a globally recognized expert, carbs are the cause of obesity in 95% of people.” You check: Dr. T. is real, wrote a book that sold 500,000 copies, and is a regular guest on talk shows. BUT his peer-reviewed studies show a much less clear-cut picture — “excess simple carbs are one factor among several.” His book and interviews harden that position considerably. He's the one contradicting himself.", "question": "What do you make of this?", "options": [ "His book sells well, so he must be right", "An expert who contradicts himself is automatically a fake expert", "Science can hold nuance; popular books usually flatten it. But if the two say clearly opposite things, something dishonest is going on somewhere. Find out why." ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "This is a rare but real case: a REAL expert letting the market shape his message — the book sells better when it's dramatic. In peer review, he's careful. In his book and media appearances, he hardens his stance. It's a form of commercial bad faith. A genuine scientist keeps the complexity in every format. The move: compare what he says in formal research versus popular media. If the two diverge, that's a red flag.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r08" ] }, { "id": "experts-c-10", "category": "experts", "level": 3, "situation": "A long, well-documented article claims: “The National Academy of Psychosocial Studies recommends approach Y for treating disorder Z.” The academy is real and officially recognized. But when you look for this specific recommendation on its site and in its public materials, it isn't there. Contacted directly, the academy says: “We never made that recommendation.” The article's author, a journalist, connected two things that don't actually connect.", "question": "What does this case teach you about verification?", "options": [ "A well-documented journalist never makes this kind of mistake", "If it's an official institution, it must have said whatever is being claimed", "Even a real institution doesn't say everything it gets credited with saying. You have to check directly with it, or in its official materials." ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A subtle case: the institution is real. Approach Y might even be real, and valid. BUT the academy never said this. It's the author who falsely linked the two. Whether by mistake or manipulation, a real fact-check has to ask: does the institution say YES or NO to this — not just whether the institution exists. The move: always verify directly with the SOURCE being cited, not just a source about the source.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r08" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-f-01", "category": "chiffres", "level": 1, "situation": "An ad for an energy gel announces: “87% of users felt more energized!” At the bottom of the page, in tiny print: “Survey of 45 people who had already purchased the product.”", "question": "What should you think about this 87% figure?", "options": [ "It's already suspect: only 45 people, and they're all buyers — not a genuine test audience", "It's reliable: 87% is a clear majority", "The math checks out, so the number must be accurate" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Those 45 people don't represent anyone: they're people who already paid for the product and want to feel good about their purchase. No control group, nobody else tested it for comparison. An impressive percentage built on a tiny, biased sample is worth nothing. The move: who actually answered? How were they chosen?", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r09" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-f-02", "category": "chiffres", "level": 1, "situation": "A regional newspaper's headline: “ER admissions up 300% in a single month!” The article clarifies: “From 8 visits to 24 visits in January compared to the previous December.”", "question": "Is the headline accurate?", "options": [ "No — mathematically correct but misleading: this is a tiny absolute increase in raw numbers, and this ER normally handles 800-1,000 cases a month", "No, the real increase is 16 visits, not 300", "Yes, going from 8 to 24 is a 300% increase, so it's correct" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Tripling a tiny number is still a tiny number. Going from 8 to 24 visits at a center that handles 1,000 cases a month is just normal day-to-day variation. The percentage change hides the real scale. The move: find the starting point in absolute numbers, then judge whether the change is genuinely unusual or just noise.", "reflexes": [ "r09", "r06" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-f-03", "category": "chiffres", "level": 1, "situation": "A beverage brand announces: “Our customers buy from us an average of 4 times a month.” What that hides: within that same group, some customers buy 20 times a month, others just once. The average is papering over two completely different worlds.", "question": "Why is this number misleading on its own?", "options": [ "Because you'd need to know the total number of customers", "Because 4 times a month is way too much", "Because the average hides the spread: some customers are super-buyers, others are rare buyers. The genuinely interesting number stays invisible." ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "An average of 4 could represent 1,000 customers who buy 4 times AND 10 customers who buy 100 times. The middle number hides the extremes. Brands love the average because it sounds reasonable. The move: ask for the median (the number that splits the group exactly in half) or the gap between the biggest and smallest buyers. That brings you back to reality.", "reflexes": [ "r09" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-f-04", "category": "chiffres", "level": 1, "situation": "You read: “Sales for a watch brand grew 150% in three years.” No date, no starting number given. You have no idea whether that means going from 2 watches to 5, or from a million to 2.5 million.", "question": "What's missing to judge this number?", "options": [ "The currency exchange rate", "The absolute figures at the start AND the end: without them, 150% is just noise", "The name of the brand's founder" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A percentage with no context is an empty shell. 150% of an unknown base tells you nothing. The move: always look for the raw numbers. What was there before? What's there now? Only with both figures can you judge whether the increase is real or theatrical.", "reflexes": [ "r09", "r03" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-f-05", "category": "chiffres", "level": 1, "situation": "A chart shows temperature changes over a month. The Y-axis starts at 18°C (even though the lowest reading is 19.5°C) and tops out at 25°C. The day-to-day swings look enormous, with dramatic peaks and dips.", "question": "What's the visual trick here?", "options": [ "The chart shows real, genuinely impressive swings", "The Y-axis doesn't start at zero: that amplifies small variations and makes them look dramatic", "There's no problem, the chart is accurate as it is" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "By starting the axis at 18°C instead of 0°C, a 2-3 degree change looks visually enormous. It's a classic trick for turning something mundane into something dramatic. The reader sees a roller coaster where there's really just normal variation. The move: always check where the axis starts and what the real numeric range is, not just how big it looks.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r09" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-f-06", "category": "chiffres", "level": 1, "situation": "An article about accidents claims: “12,000 scooter accidents this month!” Reading further: “That's the combined total for the last three months, nationwide.”", "question": "What should you think of the headline number?", "options": [ "12,000 is the real figure, the headline is accurate", "The headline is accurate but the rest of the article is useless", "The headline hides the unit: it mixes a three-month total with a headline that talks about a single month" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Saying “this month” when you actually mean a three-month total is misleading. The real figure is closer to 4,000 a month, but the headline creates the impression of a single-month emergency. It's a deliberate mix-up between a running total and a single snapshot. The move: check whether the number being announced is yearly, monthly, weekly, or a cumulative total. That detail changes everything.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r09" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-f-07", "category": "chiffres", "level": 1, "situation": "A news outlet announces: “Crime is up 20% in the south-central region this year!” It turns out the data lumps together burglaries, minor offenses, and unpaid parking tickets — all mixed into a single number.", "question": "Is this 20% figure usable?", "options": [ "No: it mixes completely different phenomena together. A rise in parking tickets isn't the same as a rise in assaults. The number confuses more than it clarifies.", "Yes, it's an official figure", "No, but only because it's too old to matter" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "“Crime” is vague. Lumping together unpaid parking tickets, burglaries, and violent offenses, then averaging it all into one number, mixes categories that don't belong together. The real question: what, exactly, went up? The move: ask for the breakdown. Which type of offense? What's actually driving the increase? Otherwise the overall figure says nothing at all.", "reflexes": [ "r09", "r02" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-f-08", "category": "chiffres", "level": 1, "situation": "A startup announces: “We hit a record: 500,000 downloads of our app in three months!” This is only its third year in existence. Across those three years, the first two quarters had 50,000 and 100,000 downloads respectively.", "question": "Is this really a “historic record”?", "options": [ "Technically yes, but the record only spans three years — that's a short window to call it “historic” when it's really just a young company's first growth streak", "No, 500,000 is less than the true record, which is a million", "Yes, 500,000 is the biggest number this app has ever hit" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "A “record” over just three years is lightweight marketing. If the app had existed for ten years with a flat trend before this spike, that would be a real record. Over three years, it's just normal growth. The word “historic” gives weight to something that hasn't earned it. The move: check how much time the record actually spans. Is one strong month over three years really “historic”? No.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r09" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-f-09", "category": "chiffres", "level": 1, "situation": "An NGO report states: “2.3 billion people don't have access to clean drinking water. That's enormous!” No context about the world's population, no comparison offered anywhere.", "question": "Why is this raw number hard to judge on its own?", "options": [ "Because an NGO can't really count that high", "Because 2.3 billion is such a huge number that it must be a serious problem", "Because without knowing the world's total population (around 8 billion), you can't tell if that's 30% or 90% — the real scale stays fuzzy" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A raw number with no scale for comparison just floats in a vacuum. 2.3 billion out of roughly 8 billion works out to about 29%: that means most of the world does have access. It's serious, but not universal. The number alone says “a lot” while hiding the actual proportion. The move: always look for the denominator — the total. What percentage does this represent? Compared to what?", "reflexes": [ "r09", "r06" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-f-10", "category": "chiffres", "level": 1, "situation": "One newspaper writes: “Median pay dropped 3% this year.” Another, at the very same time: “Pay rose by an average of 2% this year.” Neither one is lying.", "question": "How can two papers say the opposite thing?", "options": [ "Because the year isn't over yet for one of the papers", "One of the two must be wrong", "Because “average” pay can rise while “median” pay (the middle figure) falls — very high salaries can jump a lot, pulling the average up, while most people are actually earning less" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "The average and the median don't tell the same story. If executives get a 50% raise while 90% of workers earn 5% less, the average climbs (dragged up by the top earners) while the median falls (because most people are earning less). That's why you need both. The move: notice whether a figure is an “average” or a “median” — it changes everything. If it's an average, ask for the median too, and vice versa.", "reflexes": [ "r09" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-m-01", "category": "chiffres", "level": 2, "situation": "A news article announces: “Study: drinking a glass of orange juice a day reduces wrinkles by 45%!” Further down: “A team of dermatologists tracked the habits of 1,200 women over two years and measured changes in their skin.”", "question": "What's off about the causal story here?", "options": [ "The study ran for too long", "The correlation observed — drinking orange juice and having fewer wrinkles — isn't necessarily causation: women who eat well and drink juice probably also drink plenty of water, use skincare, or simply have favorable genetics. The factors are all tangled together.", "The sample is too small to support such a big conclusion" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Seeing two things together — drinking juice and having fewer wrinkles — doesn't prove that one causes the other. Women who choose to drink juice may also be the ones who take care of their skin, sleep well, and live with less stress. Juice is just one detail in what's really a healthier lifestyle overall. This is the classic correlation-versus-causation mix-up. The move: look for the hidden variables. What else could explain the link?", "reflexes": [ "r05", "r02" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-m-02", "category": "chiffres", "level": 2, "situation": "A researcher publishes: “67% of social media users feel lonelier after an hour of use.” He asked participants every evening whether they felt lonely, right after having them scroll a short-video app for an hour.", "question": "What's the methodological trap here?", "options": [ "67% isn't a high enough number to generalize from", "People who agree to take part in this kind of study are also agreeing to scroll on command — that's not normal use. And asking “do you feel lonely?” right after a loneliness-focused test shapes the answer. Measuring the feeling changes the feeling.", "The study only lasted one evening" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A survey that asks “do you feel lonely?” right after making people believe social media causes loneliness shapes the response. This is what's called an expectation bias. On top of that, someone who volunteers for a study about loneliness isn't a typical user to begin with. The study is built to confirm itself. The move: ask what normal life looked like before the study. Was there a baseline? How do we really know 67% are lonely?", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r01" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-m-03", "category": "chiffres", "level": 2, "situation": "A city council announces: “Crime is down 28% this year compared to last year!” Digging further, you find that last year saw a major crackdown campaign with heavy reporting. This year, police were told to issue fewer citations and more warnings instead.", "question": "Why doesn't this 28% drop mean anything?", "options": [ "Because 28% isn't a big enough number to be reliable", "Because one year isn't enough time to draw conclusions", "Because the way things are counted has changed: fewer cases are being logged, not fewer cases happening. The situation on the ground may have gotten worse even while the statistics drop by pure definition." ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Official numbers are shaped by how they're gathered. If the instruction becomes “stop citing minor offenses,” those offenses vanish from the count, but not from the streets. This council simply started counting less. It's a classic move in policing and health statistics: change how you measure without saying so. The move: find out what changed in the method. Who's logging the cases? What were they told to do? Did the real cases change, or just the numbers?", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r09" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-m-04", "category": "chiffres", "level": 2, "situation": "An ad for a phone battery claims: “Our battery lasts 40% longer!” Reading the fine print: “Compared to an older model from a competing brand, measured with the screen off and network disabled.”", "question": "How does this comparison rig the results?", "options": [ "The test conditions are completely unrealistic: nobody uses a phone with the screen off. And comparing against an old model from a rival brand is straight-up cherry-picking. The real question: how does it compare to my current phone, screen on, normal network use?", "It's fair: a battery that lasts longer is simply a better battery", "The battery can't really last 40% longer than claimed" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "A manufacturer wants its number to look as dramatic as possible. It picks the weakest opponent (an old rival model), the most favorable condition (screen off), and its best possible showing. This is called cherry-picking: handpicking the results that flatter you. An honest test would compare it to the same brand's previous model, screen on, normal use. The move: read the test conditions in the fine print. If they're strange or clearly tilted toward the seller, the number means nothing.", "reflexes": [ "r07", "r02" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-m-05", "category": "chiffres", "level": 2, "situation": "A report states: “Food-related accidents in the city have jumped 200% in a year.” Checking further: the city recently opened a reporting center for food poisoning that made filing a report much easier. Before that, people mostly didn't bother reporting at all.", "question": "What should you conclude from this 200% figure?", "options": [ "It mostly reflects a change in how things are counted: reporting used to be hard, now it's easy. Real accidents may have ticked up slightly, but mainly we're just seeing them now. The number doesn't say what people think it says.", "You'd need 300% for this to be a genuine problem", "There really are three times as many accidents now" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "What's rising is visibility, not necessarily real danger. When you make it easy to report something, reports go up — that's a pure counting effect. This is called a statistical artifact. The year before, people just stayed quiet or never filed a report at all. The move: whenever a number jumps sharply, check what changed in how it's measured before declaring a crisis. Was there a new rule? A new tool? An awareness campaign? That often explains 80% of the increase.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r03" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-m-06", "category": "chiffres", "level": 2, "situation": "A magazine's headline: “Women earn 15% less than men!” The number comes from median income reported across every category combined: employees, freelancers, retirees, and more. Women make up proportionally more of the retiree group (lower income) and fewer of the very top earners.", "question": "Does this 15% figure really reflect discrimination for doing the same job?", "options": [ "No, it's simply because there are more women than men overall", "Yes, this is direct proof of discrimination", "No, not at all: the figure blends completely different populations together. A median retirement income isn't comparable to a salary; retirees earn less in general. And within salaried work alone, the gap would be much smaller. The move: make sure you're comparing apples to apples." ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A pay gap exists and is well documented, but this particular number inflates it artificially by mixing categories that don't belong together. If you compared female managers to male managers, or nurses to their male counterparts in the same role, the gap would still be there, just far less dramatic. The raw headline number caricatures the issue. This is a case where a better number is available: the real gap exists but isn't 15% by this crude method. The move: ask for a like-for-like comparison. Same sector? Same experience level? Same hours?", "reflexes": [ "r09", "r02" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-m-07", "category": "chiffres", "level": 2, "situation": "A newspaper claims: “Average incomes rose 6% over the past decade.” It turns out the figure includes heavy inflation: real purchasing power barely moved, and it actually dropped for lower incomes.", "question": "What should you think of this 6% figure?", "options": [ "6% is very little for ten years", "It's technically true but misleading: if inflation ate up 5 points of that increase, the real gain in purchasing power is only about 1%. The nominal figure (before inflation) flatters; the real figure (after inflation) is what actually counts.", "It's good news: 6% over ten years is genuine progress" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Nominal statistics (in today's currency) can rise while real statistics (purchasing power) stagnate or fall. This is a fashionable trick: show numbers that shine on paper but weigh less in people's pockets. Meanwhile, people feel poorer — and in real terms, they're right. The move: always ask for the real, inflation-adjusted figure. And if that adjustment is never mentioned, it's often a sign the nominal number would be embarrassing.", "reflexes": [ "r09", "r07" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-m-08", "category": "chiffres", "level": 2, "situation": "A startup announces: “We've grown 10x in three years!” No other data given. It turns out that in year 1 it had 2 customers, in year 2 it had 15, and in year 3 it had 20 — almost no growth in that final year. The “10x” comes from comparing year 1 against year 3, which inflates both ends artificially.", "question": "How does this 10x figure lie?", "options": [ "It doesn't lie, it's mathematically accurate", "It's technically true in absolute terms, but it hides the real story: all the growth happened between year 1 and year 2, and year 3 was essentially flat. Saying “10x in three years” dramatizes a curve that's actually leveling off. The move: look at the year-by-year curve, not just the start-to-finish ratio.", "10x is too much to be believable" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A start-to-finish ratio inflates things: starting at 2 and ending at 20 sounds spectacular. But if the real story is 2, then 15, then 20, that means growth is running out of steam. A company slowing down in year 3 after a sprint in year 1 doesn't look like a company growing steadily. The move: demand the year-by-year breakdown, not just the start-to-finish ratio.", "reflexes": [ "r09", "r03" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-m-09", "category": "chiffres", "level": 2, "situation": "A health article claims: “Vaccinated people catch the virus at a rate 20% lower than the unvaccinated — this proves the skeptics wrong!” Another source states: “Among older adults, the vaccine is 95% protective, though that rate declines with age.”", "question": "Can both claims be true at the same time?", "options": [ "No, one of them has to be wrong", "20% and 95% can't possibly come out of the same vaccine", "Yes: if 80% of vaccinated people are young and 70% of unvaccinated people are older, the average 20% gap mostly reflects the age difference between the two groups, not the vaccine's effectiveness within the same age bracket. It's a case of mixing different populations together." ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "The worst trap in any comparison: the two populations aren't identical. Vaccinated people include far more young people (naturally lower risk), unvaccinated people include more older people (naturally higher risk). Mix them together, and the 20% statistic becomes an artifact. The real figure — the vaccine's effect within the same age group — is far higher. This is called confounding bias. The move: in every comparison, check for gaps in age, prior health, or exposure. Otherwise the number is poisoned.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r09" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-m-10", "category": "chiffres", "level": 2, "situation": "A source claims: “A researcher found that natural substance X fights cancer with 87% effectiveness!” You read the original paper: the study covers 34 lab mice, not humans.", "question": "What should you conclude from this 87% figure?", "options": [ "That's good news, there's real hope here", "87% seems suspiciously high", "It's a lab result that could be a promising start, but going from a mouse to a human is a huge leap. The number only describes mice; extrapolating it to people is an enormous jump. The move: understand the study's stage. Animals or humans? Lab or real life?" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Lab results in animals matter for exploring possibilities, but they almost never carry over exactly to humans. Our bodies are far more complex machines; something that works in a test tube can be ineffective, or even toxic, in a person. That's exactly why clinical trials exist: to check what actually holds up. The move: find out what stage the research is at. Lab? Animals? Humans? The meaning of a number changes completely depending on the stage.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r08" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-c-01", "category": "chiffres", "level": 3, "situation": "A polling institute announces: “Reports of online abuse have exploded: up 89% in three years!” You look for the raw numbers: the site received 4 reports the first year, 6 the second, 7 the third. Nobody else is reporting any such explosion.", "question": "Is this really an explosion?", "options": [ "No, because the survey was conducted online", "No: going from 4 to 7 cases is a tiny shift, barely visible at all. On a real base of thousands, nobody would even mention it. The impressive percentage hides the fact that the base was so small that adding three cases is enough to nearly double it.", "Yes, 89% is massive" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A dramatic percentage on a tiny base is worth very little. 89% of 4 cases equals 3.5 extra cases. Going from 4 to 7 isn't an explosion, it's statistical noise. On a base of 4,000 growing to 7,560, that would be a real increase. The move: always look for the raw numbers first. If the base is tiny, the percentage tells you nothing.", "reflexes": [ "r09" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-c-02", "category": "chiffres", "level": 3, "situation": "A school announces: “The average age of our job-placement students is 31 — perfect for our continuing-education and work-study programs!” In reality, the group has 200 students: 80 are between 16 and 24, and 120 are between 45 and 60.", "question": "Why is this average misleading?", "options": [ "Because the real students are younger than they used to be", "Because not a single student is actually 31: the average masks two radically different populations — young people starting out, and older adults retraining. This is a real case of two separate peaks hiding behind one number.", "Because 31 is too old for higher education" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "An average drawn from two far-apart groups invents a phantom person in the middle. The school is mostly made up of very young students and near-retirees, but the average claims “middle-aged group.” This is a classic trap in HR and demographic marketing. The move: ask for the median (the number that splits the group exactly in half) and the breakdown by age bracket. That tells the real story.", "reflexes": [ "r09" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-c-03", "category": "chiffres", "level": 3, "situation": "A newspaper headline: “Studying at night means better grades. The more students study after 8pm, the better they do!” The figure comes from a real observed correlation: night-owls average 2 points higher.", "question": "Can you conclude that studying late CAUSES better grades?", "options": [ "Yes, the correlation is measured and real", "No, because grades never change", "No: the correlation is real, but it's a causation trap. Strong students study more overall, including at night. The late hour is just a trace of how hard-working they already are. Cutting into sleep to study late would likely backfire." ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Seeing two things together — studying late and good grades — doesn't prove one causes the other. Hard-working, high-achieving students study more, including late at night, and including other, healthier hours too. The late hour is a symptom of the effort, not the cause of the success. This is the classic mistake: confusing correlation with causation. The move: always look for the hidden variable (here: work ethic, discipline). What else could explain the link?", "reflexes": [ "r05", "r09" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-c-04", "category": "chiffres", "level": 3, "situation": "A chart showing audience growth displays a curve that shoots up spectacularly. The data points are: 10 (year 1), 32 (year 2), 1,000 (year 3). The Y-axis is logarithmic — which is never labeled anywhere on the chart.", "question": "Is the growth really exponential?", "options": [ "Impossible to say without reading the axis: if it's logarithmic, you're actually looking at a straight line — steady percentage growth, not an exponential curve. If it's a normal scale, it is exponential. Reading the axis is essential, and here, it's missing.", "Yes, the curve looks spectacular", "No, 1,000 isn't that big a number" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "A logarithmic scale flattens out large numbers. The exact same curve looks smooth on a log scale and explosive on a linear one. This is a presentation trick: making the mundane look dramatic, or the reverse. This particular chart might be perfectly honest, but it's hiding the key to reading it. The move: always check whether the Y-axis is linear or logarithmic. And if whoever's presenting it forgets to say, that's often not an accident.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r09" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-c-05", "category": "chiffres", "level": 3, "situation": "A health channel announces: “The risk of a rare post-vaccination complication has DOUBLED: it went from 0.001% to 0.002%.” Headline: “Risk multiplied by two — watch out!”", "question": "Should this be alarming?", "options": [ "No: this is a relative-risk-versus-absolute-risk trap. Doubling a vanishingly small risk (0.002% is 1 person in 50,000) is still vanishingly small. The headline dramatizes the ratio while burying the real scale — it should really say “one extra case per 50,000 doses.”", "No, because no risk at all should ever be considered acceptable", "Yes, a risk that doubles is serious" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Saying “the risk doubled” sounds dramatic. Saying “it went from 1 in 100,000 to 2 in 100,000” makes it clear. Both are true, but they land very differently. This is a classic fear-marketing move: amplify the ratio while hiding the real scale. It's mathematically honest and deeply misleading at the same time. The move: always demand the risk in absolute numbers, not as a ratio. How many people are genuinely affected, out of how many?", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r09" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-c-06", "category": "chiffres", "level": 3, "situation": "A market survey announces: “73% of consumers say they'd be willing to buy an eco-friendly brand even if it costs 15% more.” The survey itself is methodologically sound. And yet, in stores, eco-labeled products of the same type capture only 8% of sales.", "question": "How do you explain this gap?", "options": [ "The 73% must be shopping somewhere else", "The survey is lying — people really only care about price", "The survey measures an intention (“I'd be willing to”) but the actual behavior is different: at the checkout, people go for the cheaper option. It's the classic gap between what people say they want and what they actually do." ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Saying “I'd pay more for the greater good” is easy. Actually paying more when it hits the monthly budget is another matter entirely. This is the classic weakness of surveys: they measure stated intentions, not real behavior. Life is tight; values often bend under the weight of the wallet. The move: be wary of “would you” surveys. Look for actual behavior: what do people really buy? What price do they really pay?", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r06" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-c-07", "category": "chiffres", "level": 3, "situation": "A research group compares two regions: “Region A has 45% of its population with a college degree, Region B only 28%. That's a massive education gap!” Later, you find out that A is a large urban center and B is rural, and that the definition of “resident” includes or excludes students depending on the year measured.", "question": "Is this comparison valid?", "options": [ "No, because averages never change", "No: the two areas are radically different in scope — urban versus rural, a shifting population versus a stable one. Comparing them without matching the method means comparing two different kinds of numbers. You'd need the same boundaries, the same definition of “resident,” the same age brackets.", "Yes, 45% versus 28% is a real, meaningful gap" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Two regions with opposite geographies, economies, and demographics don't compare cleanly on a raw ratio. It's noise. You'd need to control for the same age bracket, the same definition, the same measurement year, maybe even weight by industry. Region A attracts young, educated urban residents; Region B has an older population. That's normal, but it isn't an apples-to-apples gap. The move: before any “A versus B” comparison, check that you're measuring exactly the same thing. If the scope differs, the comparative number is worth nothing.", "reflexes": [ "r09", "r02" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-c-08", "category": "chiffres", "level": 3, "situation": "A headline announces: “17,000 cases of this syndrome since the start of the decade!” Reading further: that's a nine-year stretch, and the cases are spread out evenly across it. In reality: roughly 1,900 cases a year, or about 5 a day nationwide.", "question": "What's the headline's real sin?", "options": [ "It's a made-up number, 17,000 is too high to be real", "The headline hides the unit: it cumulates nine years into one alarming sentence. 17,000 sounds like an emergency. “1,900 a year” or “5 a day” tells a very different story — routine, predictable, under control.", "17,000 over nine years is actually pretty low, so it's not a big deal" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Adding up years of data creates an impressive-sounding number. 17,000 over nine years works out to about 1,900 a year. Presenting it as a lump sum without saying so sells urgency where there's actually a steady, routine pattern. This is a classic trap in health, crime, and accident reporting: piling numbers up without dividing them creates artificial fear. The move: always check what time period a big number covers. Is it one year? Ten years? One month? Divide by the number of periods to see the real underlying rate.", "reflexes": [ "r09", "r03" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-c-09", "category": "chiffres", "level": 3, "situation": "An economist publishes a note: “This year: a historic growth record for region X!” You check the available data: it only goes back three years. The values are: year 1: 3.1%, year 2: 2.8%, year 3: 3.4%. It genuinely is the highest of the three, but that's all there is to compare it against.", "question": "Why does “historic record” overstate things here?", "options": [ "Because 3.4% is a small number", "Because growth is bound to slow down again afterward", "Because a “record” over just three years of data isn't a real record. If the data went back thirty years and this year were the highest in three decades, that would be a record. Here, it's just the peak of a series too short to call “historic.”" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "The word “historic” demands depth over time. A record over three years is just a fluctuation. Over thirty years, it's a genuine record. This is a classic move in finance and economics: people call something a record based only on the period they happen to have data for. The move: always look for the real historical record. Does it go back ten years? A hundred? Just three? The shorter the series, the less weight the word “record” carries.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r09" ] }, { "id": "chiffres-c-10", "category": "chiffres", "level": 3, "situation": "A government agency publishes: “According to the annual survey of 8,500 households (margin of error ±1.2%), the relative poverty rate this year is 13.7%, up 0.8 points from last year. Methodology: national statistics agency survey, scope: mainland territory.”", "question": "Is this figure reliable enough to draw conclusions from?", "options": [ "No, because it comes from the government — it must be biased", "No, because 13.7% sounds like a suspiciously round number", "Yes, largely: a solid sample, a reputable source, a stated margin of error, transparent methodology, a clear scope, and a valid year-over-year comparison. This is a well-built number, properly framed." ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "This case is the opposite of the previous ones: a genuinely solid number. Traceable source, open methodology, an honestly stated limitation (margin of error), a clear definition (relative poverty, mainland territory). You can trust this and use it for real decisions. Not every number is a trap; this one is built to be used. The move: learn to recognize well-presented numbers. Reputable source plus visible methodology plus stated limits equals fine to use.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r09" ] }, { "id": "vieux-f-01", "category": "vieux", "level": 1, "situation": "In a group chat, someone shares a video of a building collapsing, with the caption: “This just happened in our area! Share this everywhere!” In the bottom corner, in small print, there's a date: 2019.", "question": "Why does this video have nothing to do with “right now”?", "options": [ "Because the video is several years old", "Because old videos never circulate in group chats", "Because a building can only collapse once per decade" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "The date stamped on the video — 2019 — is the most visible signal here. That's 6-7 years ago. The tone, “this just happened,” mixes urgency and fear to get you sharing without thinking. Checking the date is always the first move whenever something claims to be happening “today.”", "reflexes": [ "r03" ] }, { "id": "vieux-f-02", "category": "vieux", "level": 1, "situation": "A warning is circulating: “Alert! Extreme storm expected tonight along the coast between 8pm and 11pm. Close your shutters, stay indoors!” You come across it on a Sunday morning, posted in three different groups. Checking a weather site, you see: Sunday, sunny and calm, mild temperatures.", "question": "What's the biggest clue that this warning is outdated?", "options": [ "The number of groups where it's being shared", "The times given (8pm-11pm) don't match the current weather at all", "The fact that it mentions the coast" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A weather warning about a storm “tonight,” while your area is sunny and calm, means it's from a different day — an earlier one. Warnings that get automatically reshared are dangerous: they trigger false panic and can make people ignore a genuinely real alert. Checking the date and time of the original message is essential.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02" ] }, { "id": "vieux-f-03", "category": "vieux", "level": 1, "situation": "You come across an online ad: “Special offer! Until November 15, buy a smartphone and get free earbuds. 30% off.” At the bottom of the ad, in tiny print: “Promotion valid November 1-15, 2020.”", "question": "Could this offer be worth your time tomorrow?", "options": [ "Yes, smartphone promotions are always valid", "Yes, if you also buy the earbuds", "No, this promotion expired several years ago" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "An expiration date more than five years in the past means the offer no longer exists. And yet these old ads keep resurfacing in feeds regularly. They can resurface naturally, or get reshared by someone who stumbles on them online without checking the date. Always look for a promotion's end date.", "reflexes": [ "r03" ] }, { "id": "vieux-f-04", "category": "vieux", "level": 1, "situation": "A friend shares a video link: “Check out this climate march from yesterday! The turnout is incredible!” You click, and the video is impressive: thousands of people filling a wide avenue. Looking at the comments underneath, you spot one that says: “Great footage from the 2019 march!”", "question": "Where does the confusion come from?", "options": [ "Video platforms always hide the dates on older videos", "The video is genuine, but it's several years old, not from yesterday", "Someone spliced together two different videos" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "The video is real, but it's 5-6 years old. Your friend never checked the date before sharing. Marches and large public gatherings are among the content types that get reshared the most: the same video resurfaces every anniversary, or whenever a similar issue comes up. Checking the upload year is the move that saves you here.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02" ] }, { "id": "vieux-f-05", "category": "vieux", "level": 1, "situation": "An alert message in a group chat: “Warning! A well-known dairy brand's product is under emergency recall. Listeria has been detected. Do not consume, serious danger. Recall date: May 2018.” You have this exact product at home, bought two weeks ago.", "question": "What lets you breathe easy here?", "options": [ "Listeria can only ever affect one single brand's products", "Recalls from 2018 no longer apply to today's products", "The recall is more than 6 years old, long before you bought the product" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A recall that's six years old? Of course your product isn't affected — manufacturers stopped selling that dangerous batch long ago. These old alerts keep resurfacing constantly, creating false panic. Showing the date defuses needless worry. But checking the recall date is the first move: a valid, active recall always comes with a recent date.", "reflexes": [ "r03" ] }, { "id": "vieux-f-06", "category": "vieux", "level": 1, "situation": "An article about a change to school schedules is being shared: “Starting this fall, schools will switch to a 4-day school week. Parents are furious! Protest meetings are being scheduled.” The article was written in July 2023, but it's now circulating widely on social media in April 2024.", "question": "What's the problem with sharing this in April 2024?", "options": [ "The article talks about a change that may or may not have actually happened since it was published — there's no way to know without checking", "Schools never change their schedule twice in the same year", "If it was written in July 2023, it must be about the future" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "An article from July 2023 talking about a change coming that fall was forward-looking at the time. But we're now nine months past that point. Did the change actually happen? Was it canceled? The article is old, and the information could be completely out of date. You need to look for something more recent that says whether it went through or not. That's the trap: the article is genuine, but it's become useless.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02" ] }, { "id": "vieux-f-07", "category": "vieux", "level": 1, "situation": "A warning message is circulating: “New scam detected! Scammers are now pretending to be your bank and asking for your password by text message. Be careful!” The alert itself has no visible date, but the attached photo shows a text message with pixelated text and a phone status bar timestamped “2017.”", "question": "Is this scam advice still useful today?", "options": [ "This is an old alert from 2017 — this scam has been around for ages and is already well known", "The more this alert gets shared, the more current it becomes", "Bank scams didn't exist back in 2017" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "The fake-banker text scam? It's been around for years, long before 2017. The alert is true — this scam is genuinely dangerous — but it's very old and very well known by now. Sharing a decade-old warning doesn't inform anyone of anything new. It just clutters feeds and creates noise. A useful alert needs to be current and relevant.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r01" ] }, { "id": "vieux-f-08", "category": "vieux", "level": 1, "situation": "A message in a group chat: “Look at this screenshot of a crazy discount at an electronics store! Up to 70% off EVERYTHING!” The screenshot shows crossed-out prices and a recognizable logo, but there's no date visible anywhere.", "question": "How do you find out that this discount has expired?", "options": [ "The logo never changes style over the years", "You type the store's name and some text from the screenshot into an image search to find out when this capture first appeared online", "Online store discounts never last more than 48 hours" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "An image with no date is a trap: it could be from yesterday or from a decade ago. Running a reverse image search, or searching the visible text, can reveal where and when it first circulated. It's the same move you'd use on a video: tracking down the origin and the publication date is already half the battle won.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02" ] }, { "id": "vieux-f-09", "category": "vieux", "level": 1, "situation": "A message is circulating: “A remote-work law was just passed: employers are now required to allow 2 remote workdays a week.” A video showing a legislative debate is attached. A friend who works in government tells you there is indeed a remote-work law, but it dates back to 2020.", "question": "What's actually going on here?", "options": [ "Laws that get passed become public knowledge instantly", "A law that's already been passed can't still be shown being debated", "The information about the law is true, but it isn't new — it's several years old" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "An old law, resurfacing with no date attached, gets mistaken for “news.” The video of the legislative debate is genuine — it's from 2020 — but watched today, it creates the illusion of a current event that isn't actually happening. Old legislative content like this comes back strong every time a similar debate resurfaces. Checking the date of the original vote saves you from the trap.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02" ] }, { "id": "vieux-f-10", "category": "vieux", "level": 1, "situation": "In December, a profile shares an image: “Thank you for this year! Memories of an incredible event from this past August 15!” You look into it and find that this same profile posts the exact same message — same image, same thank-you note — every August 15 since 2018.", "question": "What's the real sign of staleness here?", "options": [ "Anniversaries can only be commemorated once", "Old images lose a bit of their color every year", "The profile reshares the same content year after year without changing anything" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Some profiles are set up to automatically repost, or some people simply forget they've already posted this before. An image reshared every year with the same caption becomes noise: it isn't telling you anything new, it's commemorating something. That's the key difference — a genuine piece of news from this year isn't an anniversary. When something comes back every year on the same date, it's a commemoration, not news.", "reflexes": [ "r03" ] }, { "id": "vieux-m-01", "category": "vieux", "level": 2, "situation": "Scrolling through social media, you find a health-flavored article: “Researchers discover that coffee adds 5 years to your life expectancy.” The article cites a 2015 study, but it's being massively reshared in 2024 with the comment “Finally, some good news!” as if it were breaking today.", "question": "What move actually tests this article?", "options": [ "Check whether the lead researcher is still alive", "Look up the study's original date and see whether more recent research has confirmed or contradicted it", "Read the comments to see if other people believed it" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A 2015 study is nine years old. Even if it held up well at the time, other research may have qualified it or disproven it since. Resharing a medical “discovery” without checking what's been said about it since creates noise and false novelty. The move: the study's date, plus more recent context.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r05" ] }, { "id": "vieux-m-02", "category": "vieux", "level": 2, "situation": "A list of clothing prices is being shared in a group: “These prices at TrendStyle are INSANE! T-shirt: $3, jeans: $9, dress: $12. Order fast before they sell out!” You go to the official site and the listed prices are $15, $35, $40.", "question": "Where does the mismatch come from?", "options": [ "The internet shows different prices depending on who's looking", "The official site updates its prices every hour just to fool customers", "The shared list is probably from an old promotion that ended long ago" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Price screenshots with no date keep resurfacing regularly. A promo from a while back? Shared today by someone who saved it and forgot to check. People rush to the site chasing those prices, find the real current ones, and feel cheated. Always check: is there a date on this promotion? If not, assume it's expired.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02" ] }, { "id": "vieux-m-03", "category": "vieux", "level": 2, "situation": "A viral video carries this title: “Shocking reveal: a student records a teacher saying abusive things in class!” The video is dated 2024, but the comments say “This was already known back in 2020, the teacher apologized at the time.” You look into it and find an article from back then confirming exactly that.", "question": "Why isn't this “revelation” actually one?", "options": [ "The incident had already happened and been reported 4 years before this video surfaced", "Viral videos never depict anything that happened before they were posted", "A teacher can't apologize twice in a row" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Videos of incidents or scandals resurfacing years after the fact look like “revelations” because they're new to whoever is discovering them for the first time. But it's archived content, not news. Checking whether an incident was already covered at the time heads off false outrage.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "vieux-m-04", "category": "vieux", "level": 2, "situation": "A post circulates: “Unbelievable: this political figure made horribly sexist comments! Exclusive video!” You watch the video, dated 2019. Digging further, you find he'd already issued an apology at the time, and in 2020 he completed training on the topic.", "question": "How does this video keep becoming “current” year after year?", "options": [ "The video was already known, but a new user shares it without knowing its past context, which makes it feel brand new to their audience", "A political figure can never change his position", "Political videos change authors every year" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "This is the trap of social feeds: every new wave of users discovers an old video as if it were fresh. Shared without the date or the resolution that followed, it manufactures fake outrage. Looking for the full context, not just the clip, is what pays off here.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02", "r01" ] }, { "id": "vieux-m-05", "category": "vieux", "level": 2, "situation": "A viral warning: “Watch out! A new scam is going around: scammers now claim they can sell your own stolen bank account back to you.” You look into it and find that this scam was already well documented and flagged back in 2017 by several organizations. The alert's content was accurate at the time, but it resurfaces every summer.", "question": "What's the problem with this alert reappearing over and over?", "options": [ "Scams change every year, so this information is always new", "This is a true but very old alert that creates noise and drowns out the scams that are ACTUALLY current", "Sharing an old alert makes it more credible" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "True security rumors, once widely reported, become noise if they keep resurfacing year after year. Scammers evolve, techniques change. Sharing a 2017 alert just piles on the noise instead of warning anyone of anything new. Checking whether a threat is still current before sharing saves everyone from the clutter.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r05" ] }, { "id": "vieux-m-06", "category": "vieux", "level": 2, "situation": "In a parents' group, someone shares a chart: “Look! 80% of kids are victims of bullying at school! It's a catastrophe!” The chart is colorful and eye-catching, but no date is given anywhere. After some digging, you find this chart comes from a study dating back to 2011.", "question": "How do you check whether this figure still holds up?", "options": [ "Count the number of bars on the chart", "The more colorful a chart is, the more recent the data must be", "Look for more recent studies on school bullying to see how this rate has changed since" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A chart with no date is a classic trap. School, social, and health statistics shift over time. A figure that was accurate in 2011 could be partly wrong today. Looking for an updated version of the original report, or a newer report altogether, is the key move.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02", "r09" ] }, { "id": "vieux-m-07", "category": "vieux", "level": 2, "situation": "A computer security notification is circulating: “Urgent alert! Your browser is out of date! Download the latest version immediately before viruses take over! Here's the link...” The alert has no date on it, but it mentions a browser version that was released in 2019.", "question": "What gives away that this is an old message being recycled?", "options": [ "Browsers have kept the exact same design since they were invented", "The specific browser version mentioned clearly dates back several years; the rest is just copy-pasted", "Computer viruses didn't exist back in 2019" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Real computer security alerts existed in 2019 and remain valid today, but shared without an update, they lose credibility. If an alert names a specific or outdated version, that reveals its age. Checking that version's release date and comparing it to when the alert was created reveals how old the message really is.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02" ] }, { "id": "vieux-m-08", "category": "vieux", "level": 2, "situation": "A post is being urgently shared with a photo: “Attention! This child has been missing for 3 days. Share as much as possible to help find them! Call if you see them!” The photo is clearly several years old. Digging further, you find the child in question was found long ago and is now 18 years old.", "question": "Why is this well-meaning urgent share actually dangerous?", "options": [ "A photo from several years ago can't possibly be of a child", "Missing children can only be found on the day they disappear", "This is an old appeal being presented as urgent; the child has long since been found, and sharing their old photo as “missing” could put them at risk now" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Appeals for help — a missing child, a lost pet, someone on the run — are the kind of content that keeps getting reshared for years. Sharing an old search as “urgent” manufactures needless panic and, worse, can expose someone who has since built a normal life. Checking whether the search is still active saves a lot of harm.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "vieux-m-09", "category": "vieux", "level": 2, "situation": "A piece of public health advice is circulating: “If you get bitten by a tick, yank it out hard, right away!” This advice has been repeated for decades. You share it. But current medical guidance recommends removing a tick differently.", "question": "What could have changed since this old piece of advice was first given?", "options": [ "Scientific understanding evolves; what was recommended years ago can turn out to be counterproductive today", "Ticks genetically mutate every year", "The more a piece of advice gets repeated, the truer it becomes" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Health advice, even the kind that sounds like plain common sense, evolves alongside medical research. A trick that was considered safe a decade ago can be harmful today. Not checking whether this advice is STILL recommended by current health authorities risks passing along bad guidance.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r08", "r05" ] }, { "id": "vieux-m-10", "category": "vieux", "level": 2, "situation": "A political quote is being shared: “Our minister once said: 'Public services never need reform.' Unbelievable!” The quote is from a debate back in 2015. You check and discover that this same minister, in 2020, launched a major reform of public services.", "question": "What does this out-of-context quote actually signal?", "options": [ "This quote is nine years old and no longer reflects the minister's current position; it's accurate but outdated", "Politicians never change their minds", "A quote can only be used the same year it was said" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Political quotes shared with no date or timeline paint a frozen portrait of a person. Politicians change, learn, adjust. Sharing a 2015 statement as proof of someone's current thinking is manipulation through a hidden date. Always check: when was this actually said? Has the context changed since?", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "vieux-c-01", "category": "vieux", "level": 3, "situation": "An online article states: “13-year-olds aren't allowed to use social media. It's against the law!” The article dates from 2019. You share it to warn some teens. But by 2024, the legal rule has changed, and the minimum age is now 14.", "question": "What's the deeper problem here?", "options": [ "An article about laws only ever needs to be checked once", "The information was accurate in 2019, but the law has since changed; sharing this article without checking the current version spreads an outdated rule", "Laws that mention a specific number never change" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Laws, rules, and age thresholds evolve. An article stating a rule that's more than 3-4 years old needs to be RE-CHECKED before sharing. It's not that the content is false; it's that it's outdated and can mislead someone. That's the tricky part: the 2019 text was true; the 2024 version no longer is.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r05", "r02" ] }, { "id": "vieux-c-02", "category": "vieux", "level": 3, "situation": "An article lists: “The 10 best restaurants downtown. Chef Xavier's restaurant takes the top spot. Unique atmosphere, exquisite dishes...” You decide to go, trusting this ranking published in 2018. When you arrive, the restaurant has been closed since 2021. The article was never updated.", "question": "Why has this well-written content become misleading?", "options": [ "An article, once published, can never age", "Restaurants only ever close on Sundays", "The place has been closed for years; this article still presents itself as offering current recommendations when it's actually outdated" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Articles about places, restaurants, and shops are a common trap. A recommendation from 2018 is worthless in 2024 if the place has closed, changed hands, or switched chefs. The article stays accessible and looks current, but it isn't. Check: is this place STILL open? Same owner?", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "vieux-c-03", "category": "vieux", "level": 3, "situation": "An internet security guide from 2015 advises: “For a secure password, use a capital letter, a number, a special character, and change it every 30 days.” That was standard guidance at the time. But by 2024, the leading global cybersecurity standards body recommends the opposite: long passphrases that you don't need to change regularly.", "question": "What does this mismatch reveal?", "options": [ "Best practices in security evolve over time; following a decade-old guide without checking can actually make you LESS secure", "Experts should never be allowed to change their minds", "Passphrases never existed before now" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "This is the tricky category: content that's technically sound but scientifically outdated. The 2015 guide was solid; it no longer is. Sharing decade-old security advice without checking the CURRENT version from official bodies risks causing real harm. The move: is there an up-to-date version of this advice?", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r08", "r05" ] }, { "id": "vieux-c-04", "category": "vieux", "level": 3, "situation": "A legal article is being shared: “In a separation, custody of the children belongs SOLELY to the parent with official custody. The other parent has no rights at all.” That was literally true back in 2005. But by 2024, the law has evolved: co-parenting arrangements and the rights of the non-custodial parent have changed. And yet this old article keeps circulating.", "question": "Why does this once-accurate content cause a problem?", "options": [ "The law has changed since 2005; an old legal article can mislead parents about their actual current rights", "An article about the law never needs updating", "Laws about children never change" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Legal content is among the most dangerous when it ages. A law that was true in 2005 can be partly or entirely false in 2024. Sharing a legal article without dating it, and without checking its CURRENT version, can cause real harm. The move: is this law STILL in effect? Has it been amended?", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r05", "r08" ] }, { "id": "vieux-c-05", "category": "vieux", "level": 3, "situation": "A photo of a neighborhood is shared with the caption: “Look how this rundown area has been left to rot! The roads are falling apart, the buildings are crumbling! Shame on the authorities!” The photo dates from a period of major renovation work back in 2018. By 2024, the entire neighborhood has been completely redeveloped.", "question": "What's the specific trap here?", "options": [ "Photos never change once they're published", "An old archive photo used as proof of the CURRENT situation misleads people about what's actually there now", "If a photo once showed a problem, that problem lasts forever" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "“Proof” photos are dangerous once they age. A photo of a 2018 construction site isn't a photo of 2024. Sharing an image with no date, while claiming it shows the current reality, is a form of cheating. The move: when was this photo taken? Has the place changed since?", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r04", "r02" ] }, { "id": "vieux-c-06", "category": "vieux", "level": 3, "situation": "A price comparison is being shared: “Check out these insane residential real estate prices: a 2-bedroom apartment costs an average of $280,000 in the region. Wages aren't keeping up!” The comparison dates from 2016. By 2024, prices have gone up, but so have wages. The 2016 observation was accurate; the comparison no longer holds.", "question": "Why does this comparison become misleading over time?", "options": [ "Real estate prices never change", "If a price was high in 2016, it must still be high in 2024", "Prices and wages both evolve over time; a 2016 comparison says nothing about 2024, and could even point the opposite direction" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Economic figures are true one day, false the next. An average price from 2016 plus an average wage from 2016 gave you a ratio that was accurate back then. But sharing that same comparison in 2024 without updating BOTH numbers manufactures a false conclusion. The move: when do these figures date from? Is there a current version of them?", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r09", "r05" ] }, { "id": "vieux-c-07", "category": "vieux", "level": 3, "situation": "An article criticizes a city project: “The eco-park project proposed by Mayor Reyes is a total waste! This dishonest man is squandering your tax money!” The article dates from 2015. Mayor Reyes left office back in 2019, replaced by someone else. And yet people keep sharing this article as proof that the current city government is incompetent.", "question": "What makes this article dangerous for public debate?", "options": [ "All mayors are basically the same, no matter who's in office", "The article is attacking a former mayor who's long gone; sharing it in 2024 pins the blame on a team that wasn't even in power at the time", "An article doesn't need to say who's actually in charge" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Political criticism with no date attached is a trap. An attack on the 2015 mayor, applied to the 2024 mayor, mixes up who's actually responsible for what. Check: who's in charge now? Who is this article actually about? Are the people being criticized even still involved?", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "vieux-c-08", "category": "vieux", "level": 3, "situation": "A technical article from 2008 explains how to optimize an old computer system using the advanced techniques of that era. Everything it says is scientifically accurate. But by 2024, processors, architectures, and the underlying challenges have changed so much that the 2008 solutions no longer apply at all.", "question": "Why does this scientifically accurate content still cause a problem?", "options": [ "If something was true in computing once, it's always true", "Technology never actually changes", "It's scientifically accurate but technically outdated; applying 2008 solutions in 2024 can be useless or even counterproductive" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Technical or scientifically solid content that's simply old is the sneakiest kind. No lies, no scam — just: the science moved on, the technology changed. Sharing a 2008 article on “optimization” without checking whether that framework still applies risks giving bad advice. The move: is this technique STILL valid today?", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r08", "r05" ] }, { "id": "vieux-c-09", "category": "vieux", "level": 3, "situation": "A 2019 health alert states: “Due to an outbreak in the region, ALL schools are closed. Children absolutely must stay home.” The outbreak lasted 3 months back in 2019. But the message, with no date attached, keeps resurfacing regularly in 2023 and 2024, pushing parents to keep their kids home for no reason.", "question": "What's the core problem here?", "options": [ "The emergency dated back to 2019; resharing it 5 years later as current instructions creates a fictional panic", "Outbreaks always last more than 5 years", "A warning message stays valid no matter what happens afterward" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Emergency messages with no date attached are informational bacteria. They survive and keep spreading long after the crisis has passed. A parent who receives “URGENT SCHOOL CLOSURES” in 2024 panics, with no idea it's a copy from 2019. Adding a date to an old alert before resharing it would have changed everything.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02" ] }, { "id": "vieux-c-10", "category": "vieux", "level": 3, "situation": "An infographic is circulating: “Poverty rose 30% over ten years. Here are the numbers” — it dates from 2018 and covers 2008-2018. You share it in 2024, saying “Look how much worse things have gotten!” Except that between 2018 and 2024, the situation had actually improved slightly.", "question": "Why does this statistic, true in 2018, mislead people in 2024?", "options": [ "It measures a period that's already over and says NOTHING about the current situation; sharing it without an update creates a false sense of urgency", "Statistics never change once they're published", "If poverty was rising through 2018, it must keep rising forever after" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Statistics are snapshots of a moment in time. An infographic that's genuinely about “2008-2018” says nothing about 2024. Resharing it as proof of the current situation is misleading. The move: what period does this statistic actually measure? Is there a more recent version available?", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r09", "r05" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-f-01", "category": "fabrique", "level": 1, "situation": "On a social network, an account named “Town Hall Official” posts: “Starting Monday, all residents must put household trash in purple bags. White bags are banned. Fines start at $200.” The profile shows the town seal and has 12,000 followers.", "question": "What should make you suspicious before believing this?", "options": [ "The word “Official” in the name is itself a signal — go find the town's real account directly from its website", "The fine seems too high, nobody would accept that", "The account has a big following, so it's probably genuine" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "A fake account can rack up thousands of followers and copy an official look in two minutes. The only real source: go to the town's official website and find its real account, or call. The fine amount might or might not be believable — that's not the signal that matters here.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-f-02", "category": "fabrique", "level": 1, "situation": "In a story on one social network, a screenshot from another platform: a quote attributed to writer Adele Winters: “Women who are afraid to succeed never succeed. Believe me, I tried.” 18,000 shares. You recognize the quote — it stuck with you.", "question": "What should raise a flag first?", "options": [ "The share count proves it's a genuine Winters quote", "The quote sounds too poetic to be real", "Quotation marks and a name aren't enough — look up the exact wording in a search engine or a proper collection of her work" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Inspiring quotes travel by the thousand on social media, often misattributed or invented outright. Even a beautiful, coherent line proves nothing. The right move: search for the exact wording in a reliable source — a collected works, a biography, a quotes database. Share counts validate nothing.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-f-03", "category": "fabrique", "level": 1, "situation": "On a messaging app, an image circulates: the front page of a paper called “The Daily Herald.” Headline: “Local school now offers free cryptocurrency classes to 10-year-olds.” The photo is blurry, but the layout looks official. 5,000 shares in one hour.", "question": "Before sharing, what's the most reliable move?", "options": [ "Zoom in on the letters to see if they look crisp", "Search for this paper online — a real publication would have an official website and archives", "Check the share count: at this volume, someone would have already flagged a hoax" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Screenshots like this can be faked in two minutes with basic tools. A real news outlet, even a small local one, has a website, an archive, and shows up in search engines. Zooming in on pixels or counting shares proves nothing at all.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r03" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-f-04", "category": "fabrique", "level": 1, "situation": "You get a call on a messaging app. A voice you recognize — your uncle's. He says: “It's urgent, I have a problem with my bank. I can't call myself. I really need you to transfer me $500 right now. Hurry, they're about to freeze my account!” The call lasts 30 seconds, the voice sounds perfect.", "question": "What should make you cautious before acting?", "options": [ "It's your uncle's voice, so it must be him", "Call your uncle directly on his known number to check the situation — voices can be cloned or imitated", "The urgency is a red flag, but a video call would prove it if it's really serious" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "AI-cloned voices have become extremely convincing. Even if you recognize the voice, the only reliable move is to call the person back on their usual number. Never go through the number or channel the caller gives you — always use one you already had.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r06" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-f-05", "category": "fabrique", "level": 1, "situation": "An email arrives: “Official notice from the Health Department. Starting July 15, all existing vaccines are cancelled and must be redone under a new mandatory formula. Updated records available at your town hall. Signed: Dr. Aaron Wells, Director.” The email comes from “health-notice@provider.com.” Three friends got it too.", "question": "What's the biggest red flag here?", "options": [ "Three friends got it too, so it must be official", "The date is specific, which makes it more credible", "The address isn't from an official government domain — a real health department notice goes out through certified channels" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Fake government notices use official-sounding addresses, but rarely the exact real domain. A genuine department announcement arrives through certified channels — official website, verified address. Three friends got it? That could just mean a spam chain reached all of you. The missing real source is the signal.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r03" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-f-06", "category": "fabrique", "level": 1, "situation": "A one-minute video: a woman talks straight to camera, natural and relaxed. She says she found a secret way to make $5,000 in two weeks using an app. The following videos show screenshots of her growing balance. Her hands look odd — sometimes five fingers, sometimes six. Her movements are jerky.", "question": "What suggests this video may have been generated?", "options": [ "The promise of making $5,000 is unbelievable", "The strange fingers and stiff movements are typical glitches in AI-generated video", "The number of follow-up videos proves it's staged" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "AI-generated videos often leave traces: odd fingers, unreadable background text, unnatural movement, strange blinking. These glitches are the most reliable signal you have. A tempting promise alone isn't enough to prove anything either way.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r06" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-f-07", "category": "fabrique", "level": 1, "situation": "A PDF arrives: “Tax Collection Notice.” Blurry red stamp, logo on the right, three pages long. “You owe $3,500 in back taxes, due by July 22 or your account will be frozen.” The header reads “Internal Revenue Office.” No date, no personal case number anywhere in the document.", "question": "What's the most reliable move before paying?", "options": [ "Call your local tax office directly using a number you find yourself, not the one printed on the document, to check", "Have a tax law specialist review the wording", "The official red stamp makes it credible — pay quickly before the account freezes" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Fake official documents are easy to produce: blurry stamps, no specific case numbers, sloppy layout are all signals. But the real move is simple — never trust a phone number printed on the document itself. Look up the official number yourself and call to check.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r03" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-f-08", "category": "fabrique", "level": 1, "situation": "You find an article on a site called “Daily News Report.” Headline: “Schools nationwide are banning phones — here's why.” The URL is “daily-news-report.xyz.” You find the exact same article on three other sites — “News Center Today,” “The Education Journal,” “Weekly Briefing” — nearly word for word. All published the same day.", "question": "What pattern should make you suspicious?", "options": [ "The sites have official-sounding names, so at least one of them must be real", "The same article on several sites proves it's real news being amplified by the media", "Three different domains with the exact same content at the same moment = a network of fabricated sites quoting each other" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Networks of fake sites create an illusion of credibility by citing one another. If an identical article appears on ten domains the same day, that's a signal: look for the original on established, verified sources. Real news shows up on real outlets, not just on clones of each other.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-f-09", "category": "fabrique", "level": 1, "situation": "On a social network, an account named “@MinistryOfFun 🤡” (a clown emoji right in the name) posts: “We've just banned all berries after 11pm for road safety reasons.” 8,000 shares. The replies are half amused, half furious.", "question": "What signals that this is humor, not news?", "options": [ "The furious replies prove some people believed it", "The account name openly includes a “🤡” and claims an absurd rule — that's a clearly labeled parody", "8,000 shares prove that it's fake" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Parody accounts often label themselves clearly, especially on X — clown emojis, joke names, absurd claims. When you find an openly parody account, check whether the person sharing it with you actually recognizes it as a joke. Plenty of people do fall for gags, but only because they never read the profile.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r10" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-f-10", "category": "fabrique", "level": 1, "situation": "A message on a messaging app, shared across 30 groups: “ALERT — City Hall just cancelled September's school subsidies. Parents must send a form to this email address before August 30. Share fast, it's urgent!” No source given, no specific town named anywhere.", "question": "Before passing it along, what would you do?", "options": [ "Message 30 contacts privately to see who's heard about it", "Look for the official announcement on the actual town's website — a real measure is communicated through official channels", "Share it right away since it says it's urgent" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Fake urgent alerts with no source exploit panic. If this were really happening, City Hall would announce it on its website or notify schools officially, not spread it through a private messaging app. The word “urgent” and the missing source are the two classic tells of this kind of hoax.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r06" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-m-01", "category": "fabrique", "level": 2, "situation": "On a short-video platform, a screenshot of texts between two friends. One says: “I saw on the news that they're banning school vacations in 2027 to save energy.” The other: “OMG seriously?! That's crazy!” 15,000 likes, panicked comments underneath.", "question": "What should make you suspicious first?", "options": [ "The like count proves it's a real screenshot", "A real government policy would come through official announcements, not text-message gossip", "The emojis make the message suspicious" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Screenshots of texts or chats can be faked in two clicks. A real energy policy is announced publicly by the government through its official channels, not stumbled upon by chance in a private conversation. Look for the actual announcement yourself if you're unsure.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r06" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-m-02", "category": "fabrique", "level": 2, "situation": "An email arrives: “Hello, your account has been compromised. Click here to verify your identity.” It comes from “contact@shop-secure-mail.com.” The logo and layout closely resemble a major retailer's. Marked urgent.", "question": "What's the main trap here?", "options": [ "The familiar-looking logo makes this message trustworthy", "The urgency suggests it's probably a real problem", "Real companies never send links to “verify your identity” by email — this is a classic phishing move. Check by going to the real site yourself" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Phishing emails copy the logo and tone of real companies closely. But a real company never asks you to click a link to hand over sensitive information. The safe move: open your browser, go to the official site yourself, not through a received link, and check your account from there.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r07" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-m-03", "category": "fabrique", "level": 2, "situation": "On a social network, a post: “I found a secret way to double my money in a month through this private messaging group. They gave me free training. Join me too!” Shortened link attached. 2,000 comments asking “Does this actually work??”", "question": "Before clicking, what's the classic tell here?", "options": [ "Easy, fast money promises plus a “private” group plus “free” training equals a classic scam formula", "If 2,000 people are asking questions, there must be something worth looking into", "The poster sounds honest and enthusiastic" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Get-rich-quick scams pull on three strings: urgency, secrecy, and guaranteed reward. Real investments simply don't work this way. Comments asking “does this really work??” are often fake accounts, or genuine people asking because they're already unsure.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r07" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-m-04", "category": "fabrique", "level": 2, "situation": "A notification on your phone: “Urgent security update for your phone. Download now to protect your data.” Bright colors, a familiar logo. You look closer and the app behind the notification resembles your Settings app, but isn't quite it.", "question": "What's the main red flag?", "options": [ "The familiar logo and official-sounding language make it credible", "Security updates are always urgent, so this is normal", "Real manufacturers push security updates through the built-in Settings app, not through push notifications linking outside" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Fake phone updates copy the format closely. But a real security update shows up directly inside your phone's own Settings app, never through a clickable notification pointing to an outside site. Never tap a link from an “urgent update” — go into Settings yourself and check.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r04" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-m-05", "category": "fabrique", "level": 2, "situation": "A screenshot of an article: “Experts say drinking coffee at night slows your heart by 40%. Here are the numbers.” Image of a colorful bar chart. Shared 10,000 times in two days. No visible source, no link to any actual study.", "question": "What should make you cautious before believing the number?", "options": [ "40% is a very precise number, which makes it credible", "The chart looks professional, so the data must be real", "No source, no link to a study. A real finding names its sources and researchers. Look up the original study before believing the number" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Dramatic numbers with no source are a classic tactic. A real scientific study names its researchers, its institution, its date, its method — not just a floating chart. Look for the link or the original paper. If it doesn't exist anywhere, it's fabricated.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-m-06", "category": "fabrique", "level": 2, "situation": "A one-minute video: a 7-year-old plays piano remarkably well. It's smooth, light, flawless. After 30 seconds, you notice the hands — the fingers pass right through the keys. The eyes blink strangely, out of rhythm with everything else.", "question": "What does this detail tell you about the video?", "options": [ "Strange blinking is a signature trait of all child prodigies", "The hands and gaze are telltale glitches of AI-generated video. This was probably created with AI, not filmed for real", "It's just a very creative staging of a talented kid's video" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "AI-generated video struggles with detail: hands especially, with fingers merging or passing through objects, plus eyes and movement that's too smooth or too jerky. These glitches are the best signal for spotting a generated clip. If you see strange hands, you have your answer.", "reflexes": [ "r04", "r06" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-m-07", "category": "fabrique", "level": 2, "situation": "A local business posts on a social network: “Incredible! We just won the international innovation award. Here's our diploma.” Photo of a beautiful framed certificate with a gold logo. The business is real, has a website, hundreds of customers.", "question": "Before congratulating them, what should you check first?", "options": [ "The beautiful certificate and gold logo prove it's real", "A credible international award can be checked: look up the award's official website, see if the business is listed among the winners. A real award has a public winners list", "The business has hundreds of customers, so it's legitimate" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Fake award certificates are easy to print. A real award, even a small local one, has an official winners list, a ceremony, public announcements. If you can't find the business anywhere on the award's official site, the certificate is probably made up.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-m-08", "category": "fabrique", "level": 2, "situation": "A social media post with a before/after photo: “I lost 65 pounds in 2 months with this miracle diet found overseas. Now available here — link below!” Heavily edited image, exaggerated before/after. The account has 100,000 followers.", "question": "What should make you skeptical right away?", "options": [ "100,000 followers means the account is credible", "The photo looks natural and unedited", "Losing 65 pounds in 2 months defies basic human physiology. The move: look for independent reviews, not just the seller's own testimonials. Before/after photos online are often heavily edited" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Miracle diet scams pull on three strings: a dramatic before/after, an unrealistic timeline, and a direct sales link. Doctors and nutritionists agree that losing that much weight that fast is dangerous. The right move: look for independent user reviews, consult a doctor, and be wary of a direct sales link.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r08" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-m-09", "category": "fabrique", "level": 2, "situation": "An email arrives with the subject: “Action required: your payment failed.” It asks you to update your banking details. The email copies the style of a major bank closely. The link is long and cryptic, starting with “https://”. You hesitate.", "question": "What's the first security move?", "options": [ "Ignore any link from the email: open your browser, go straight to your bank's site yourself, and log in to check your payment. Banks never ask for your codes by email", "If the link starts with https://, it's secure and safe to click", "A long, cryptic URL proves it's technical and secure" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Phishing emails imitate a bank's style almost perfectly. But a real bank NEVER asks you to update your login details or codes by email or link. The foolproof move: open your banking app, or type your bank's website yourself, never through the email, and check there.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r07" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-m-10", "category": "fabrique", "level": 2, "situation": "A screenshot of a DM conversation: a girl says “I'm running a contest for my school, verify you're real: type your birthday and full first name.” The screenshot looks genuine. 8,000 shares, comments saying “Haha, fun!”", "question": "What's the real trap here, even though it looks harmless?", "options": [ "Asking for personal details, even as a “game,” is data collection. The move: never share this kind of info publicly, even for a “game” or “contest.” It looks harmless but it's raw material for identity theft", "If it's framed as a game, there's no real consequence", "8,000 shares prove people are doing it without any risk" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Identity theft scams often start with fun little games that ask “just” for your birthday or first name. These seemingly minor details, combined with others you've posted elsewhere, become raw material for fraud. The move: no personal info in public, game or not.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r07" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-c-01", "category": "fabrique", "level": 3, "situation": "An article on a site called “The Daily Science Report” (one you've never heard of): “Scientists discover a new type of virus that standard tests cannot detect.” No named source, no university mentioned. But the writing is very professional, with accurate technical terms. The site's design looks like a real scientific journal.", "question": "What makes this case particularly tricky?", "options": [ "The professional writing and official-looking design prove it's a real source", "This is a good example of a fake science site: credible design, no named source, no link to any researchers. Look for the news on real sites — major journals, universities", "The virus described sounds medically realistic" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Fake science sites copy the tone and structure of real ones closely. But a real scientific discovery is published in a peer-reviewed journal, with named authors and institutions, and it also shows up on the websites of the universities involved. An unknown site with a “scientific” claim but no named researchers is a major red flag.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-c-02", "category": "fabrique", "level": 3, "situation": "A professional social network screenshot: a well-known CEO says “I'm leaving my role to join a crypto startup. It's the future.” Shared 5,000 times. But you find no official announcement anywhere on the startup's site or the company's site. Checking the CEO's real account, you find a post from three hours after the screenshot where he talks normally about his job.", "question": "What does this timing mismatch tell you?", "options": [ "CEOs change their minds often, it's normal to see contradictory posts", "5,000 shares prove everyone believed it", "If a CEO made an announcement this big, it would also appear on the official site or in a press release. No trace anywhere else, plus a strange timeline, suggests the screenshot is fabricated or not from the real account" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Deepfakes and fabricated screenshots of public figures are designed purely to create buzz. A real CEO resignation means an official statement, a website announcement, a press conference. If all you find is one screenshot, be extremely cautious. Look for the verified official account and an official company announcement.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-c-03", "category": "fabrique", "level": 3, "situation": "A podcast on a streaming platform: “Exclusive interview with a winner of a major international science prize, on black holes.” The voice sounds natural, the interview has genuinely credible technical detail. No date, no link, no host bio anywhere on the page. You look up the named person: he's real, and he did win that prize some years back.", "question": "What makes this case hard to settle quickly?", "options": [ "The accurate technical detail makes it feel credible, but the missing accreditation, date, source, and link to the laureate's real channels are red flags. Look for the official podcast on his real channels", "If the person is real and talks about his field, it's probably genuine", "A major streaming platform would never host a fake" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Sometimes a well-made fake blends a real public figure, real technical detail, and a convincing setup. The only reliable move: check whether the podcast also exists on that person's official channels, his site, his socials. If you can't find it anywhere else, it's fake even if it sounds legitimate.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r05" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-c-04", "category": "fabrique", "level": 3, "situation": "You find two very similar URLs: “eu-health-official.org” and “eu-healthofficial.org.” The first publishes public health information in a very official style. You share it, believing you're citing the authorities. In reality, you needed the real health commission's actual domain, which was neither of these.", "question": "What danger does this scenario illustrate?", "options": [ "Homoglyph attacks — domains that closely mimic real ones — target exactly this kind of confusion. Check the exact URL character by character, or find the real official site through an official search", "If the information sounds serious, it must come from a real source", "It's impossible to confuse two domains that different" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Scammers create domains that closely resemble real ones — an extra letter, a dash moved, a word split differently. To the eye, it looks official. It's a classic trap. The move: never trust a complex URL received through a message. Look up the official site yourself by searching its real name.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r04" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-c-05", "category": "fabrique", "level": 3, "situation": "An email arrives from an address that looks exactly like your school's: “winter-parents-meeting@myschool.org.” Message: “Video meeting on January 15 at 6pm. Meeting link: [clickable link].” It's written naturally, no typos, the dates match the school calendar. A parent clicks and lands on a fake login page.", "question": "What makes this hard to catch before acting?", "options": [ "No typos means it must be genuine", "An email address that looks like the school's is proof of authenticity", "The accurate details make it feel credible, but a real school meeting comes through the school's official portal or a confirmation phone call. Never click a link received by email — check directly with the school" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Spoofing a school's email address has become common. Scammers study the calendar and copy the tone closely. The difference? A real school uses its own portal, not an email with a random meeting link. The right move: call the school directly, using the number from their official site, to confirm any meeting.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-c-06", "category": "fabrique", "level": 3, "situation": "A viral video: a government minister (a fictional figure) says “We're going to tax hot meals over $50.” 50,000 views. Generative AI has copied her voice and movements almost perfectly. Her hands move naturally, no obvious glitches. Articles share the video with headlines like “SCANDAL: the minister…” without checking.", "question": "How do you settle a tricky case like this?", "options": [ "The shared articles prove experts checked it", "Even a very convincing deepfake video needs to be checked through the government's official channel — website, press release. If you find no mention of this policy anywhere else, it's an advanced fake", "If the video has 50,000 views with no takedown, it must be genuine" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Polished deepfakes with cloned voices are becoming undetectable to the naked eye — no glitch is reliable anymore. The ONLY safe move: check whether the news exists on the government's official channels. Zero mentions? It's fake. Shared articles on social media validate nothing; they just amplify the lie.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-c-07", "category": "fabrique", "level": 3, "situation": "You come across a statement “from the Education Department” announcing: “Summer break shortened by two weeks for environmental reasons.” You check the department's official site... and find it. It's genuinely published there. But buried in the official comments, a tiny note: “This page is a simulated exercise to test public reaction. This is not a real policy.”", "question": "What does this case teach about verification?", "options": [ "If you find it on the official site, it's always true", "Even information published on an official site can be a test, a joke, or something later retracted. Read to the end, look for confirmation, check the dates. Here, reading the tiny note would have prevented amplifying it", "Official comments don't count, you have to look elsewhere" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "This is a rare but instructive case: an official source doesn't guarantee that everything it publishes is true or current. Also check the details — publish date, updates, notes — not just whether the page exists. The real move: read the whole thing, look for confirmation elsewhere, check the dates.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r03" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-c-08", "category": "fabrique", "level": 3, "situation": "An article on a blogging platform: “Universities are hiding a truth about vaccines.” The author has a solid-looking profile — a biology PhD, two publications. The article cites real studies, with real names, real authors. But rereading the original studies, you find the author twists them: he claims the opposite of what they actually conclude.", "question": "What does this case show about fake sourcing?", "options": [ "An author with a real degree can't misrepresent sources", "If the studies are real, the conclusions must be real too", "This is a fake appeal to authority combined with source distortion. A good habit: always read the original study yourself before trusting a summary of its conclusions. Careful fabrication uses real studies but twists them" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "The most careful fabrication combines authority — real credentials — with real sources and quiet distortion. The author can be real, the studies real, but the conclusions false. The move: find and read the full studies yourself, don't trust the paraphrase someone else gives you.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r08" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-c-09", "category": "fabrique", "level": 3, "situation": "A blog post signed “Association for Health Transparency”: “Revelation: agency X is hiding death numbers from virus Y.” The association is real, has an official site. The article names the right agency, the right virus. But you find the source: an official report that says exactly the opposite. The association took one number out of context.", "question": "Why is this case tricky?", "options": [ "A real association can publish content that's factually false — a real source taken out of context. Check every citation by reading the original document in full. Here, the “revelation” distorts it", "If the association exists and cites the government, it must be true", "The numbers cited are real, so the conclusions must be too" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Subtle fabrication: a real association, a real cited document, but pulled out of context. The association may cite one week's death toll to suggest a cover-up, when the full report shows a downward trend overall. The move: never trust an isolated citation. Read the complete document yourself.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r09" ] }, { "id": "fabrique-c-10", "category": "fabrique", "level": 3, "situation": "A viral post: an entrepreneur says “We're partnering with [a major respected charity] to transform education abroad!” Link to a blog post. Checking the charity's official site, you find zero mention of the partnership. Calling the charity directly, they tell you: “We have not publicly approved this partnership.”", "question": "What does this case teach?", "options": [ "A genuine partnership with a major charity is announced by the charity itself, through its own channels. No official confirmation means no partnership, or nothing finalized. Always check with the partner directly before believing it", "If someone claims a partnership, it's true until proven otherwise", "It's a professional network, so information there is automatically verified" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Fake partnerships are a marketing trick: a company claims to team up with a prestigious charity to borrow its credibility, but the charity never approved anything. The move: look for mention of the partnership on the charity's official site, or call them directly. No mention means fake partnership.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "viral-f-01", "category": "viral", "level": 1, "situation": "You wake up to a message: “If you believe in luck, forward this to 5 people before noon. 48 hours after you send it, something wonderful will happen to you. Don't show anyone or the luck reverses!” The message has a pretty gold-toned image attached.", "question": "What should you do before forwarding it?", "options": [ "Check that the message comes from an official app", "Find out who started this message and where it actually comes from", "Forward it just in case, it costs nothing" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A message promising “luck” and threatening reversed fortune with no clear origin is a classic chain letter. The “don't show anyone” rule stops people from asking questions. Its power comes from urgency and fear, not magic. Tracing who actually started it almost always reveals that nobody knows.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r01" ] }, { "id": "viral-f-02", "category": "viral", "level": 1, "situation": "In a neighborhood group, a photo of a young girl circulates: “ALERT: child missing since last night near downtown. If you see her, call emergency services. Share as widely as possible!” The message isn't signed by anyone.", "question": "What's the first verification step?", "options": [ "Call emergency services to ask if the alert is real", "Share it immediately to help", "Find out who posted this alert and check with the police or official authorities" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "An alert with no clear official source can be an old photo recycled, a scam, or a hijacked story. Real missing-child alerts come from the authorities themselves, through their own official channels. Before sharing, trace it back: who posted it first? From what account? Is there an actual official report behind it?", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "viral-f-03", "category": "viral", "level": 1, "situation": "A friend forwards you: “URGENT: new security flaw detected. Do NOT log into your account for 48 hours, hackers can access your data. Wait for the official security message. Forward to your contacts!” No source at all, just this text.", "question": "Why is this a hoax chain letter?", "options": [ "Because a real security alert comes from the service itself, not from an unsigned forwarded message", "Because 48 hours is too long a window for a real flaw", "Because real technicians never issue warnings" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "The word “URGENT,” the missing source, and the push to forward are the hallmarks of chain letters. A real security alert comes from the official service, through its own channels — a verified account, a website, a declared email — with precise details. A vague message promising mysterious protection is just trying to spread itself.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r06" ] }, { "id": "viral-f-04", "category": "viral", "level": 1, "situation": "You read: “Pasta is going to disappear from shelves in 3 months! A major company is closing the last domestic factory. SIGN this petition to save our heritage! Sign here: [link]. Share!” No company named, no source, no date given anywhere.", "question": "What's off here?", "options": [ "No verifiable detail at all: no company named, no date, no source for the claim", "The link looks weird", "Pasta just isn't that important" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "A real petition or alert rests on checkable facts: the company named, the date, the source of the information. Here, emotion replaces evidence. “Pasta is going to disappear” is huge and vague — perfect for scaring people without letting them check anything. Before signing, figure out who's behind it and on what facts.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r06" ] }, { "id": "viral-f-05", "category": "viral", "level": 1, "situation": "Late one afternoon, a message arrives: “I'm not superstitious, but I sent this to 7 people and got a job offer call that same day! Send it to 7 people too. Don't break the chain!” A friend already forwarded it to you.", "question": "Why does the proof given mean nothing?", "options": [ "Because you don't know if the person is telling the truth", "Because a nice coincidence doesn't explain the link: “it happened to me” could be caused by a thousand other things", "Because chain letters never work" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "“I sent the message and it happened to me” is a powerful-sounding argument, but it's a coincidence, not proof. Job offers happen for real reasons — applications sent, networking. The message just hands the credit to the chain. Every person who forwards it can tell their own “success story,” which only reinforces the trap.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r10" ] }, { "id": "viral-f-06", "category": "viral", "level": 1, "situation": "A post appears: “Win a game console! SIMPLE: like this post, share it on your page, then tag 10 friends. Winner announced in 3 days!” No official brand in the signature, no rules posted anywhere.", "question": "What's missing for this to be a real contest?", "options": [ "The number of winners", "The exact deadline", "Clear identification of the organizer, official rules, and the legal terms of entry" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A real contest has to name its organizer, set out rules, and state where the prizes come from. This message only says “win” without saying who, how, or from whom. It's a technique for maximizing shares — the more you tag, the more you supposedly win — with no real prize behind it. The personal data of who tags whom becomes the actual product.", "reflexes": [ "r07", "r01" ] }, { "id": "viral-f-07", "category": "viral", "level": 1, "situation": "During a storm, a message spreads: “In case of flooding, DO NOT LEAVE YOUR HOME. Stay on the highest floor, close the windows, and wait. Sharing saves lives!” No official source anywhere, just this text.", "question": "Why can this advice be dangerous?", "options": [ "Because it doesn't have enough detail", "Because it doesn't come from an official emergency management authority, and real guidance can contradict this depending on the situation", "Because floods always kill" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Real safety instructions come from the authorities — emergency management, local government — through official channels. “Stay put” can be the wrong call if the building itself starts flooding. Before following safety advice found in a message, check the source: is it official? Does it actually match your exact situation?", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r03" ] }, { "id": "viral-f-08", "category": "viral", "level": 1, "situation": "A parent writes in a parents' group: “Watch out: someone is handing out “free” candy to kids after school around 3:30pm. It could be drugs! Warn the teachers and other parents!” No other detail, no date given anywhere.", "question": "What would you do before spreading this warning?", "options": [ "Wait for another parent to confirm it", "Share it right away to protect the kids", "Check directly with the school: have they reported anything? To whom? What exact date?" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Fear for kids' safety is legitimate, but it's also perfect fuel for rumors. A warning with no date, location, or official confirmation could be an old rumor resurfacing, or a complete invention. The right approach: check with a reliable source, the school itself. If it's real, they'll announce it. If it's false, you've avoided spreading panic.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "viral-f-09", "category": "viral", "level": 1, "situation": "A group message: “This trick changed my productivity: write your goal every morning and read it 10 times. I did it for 3 days and already hit 2 goals! It really works! Try it!” Zero other detail given anywhere.", "question": "Why isn't “it works, I tried it” proof of anything?", "options": [ "Because a good personal experience can come from other factors, and what works for one person doesn't necessarily work for everyone else", "Because 3 days isn't long enough", "Because the person is probably lying" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "“I tried it and it works” is very persuasive but not proof. After 3 days of a new habit, people feel motivated — a placebo effect. The two wins could come from effort or luck, not the exercise itself. This kind of claim spreads well because it's sincere, but that's exactly what makes it risky: it travels from friend to friend, gaining weight each time.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r10" ] }, { "id": "viral-f-10", "category": "viral", "level": 1, "situation": "Your feed suggests: “Copy and paste this into your profile: I do NOT give this platform permission to use my personal data. Legally, they must respect this statement. Share it!” No legal source is cited anywhere in the post.", "question": "Why doesn't this message protect anything?", "options": [ "Because a personal copy-paste has no legal weight: a platform's terms of use can't be overridden by a status update", "Because you need to do it through a notary", "Because the platform is going to take your data either way" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Real rights over your data come from actual laws and the platform's own settings, not a copied message. This chain letter plays on fear and a false sense of control — “I did something to protect myself.” It spreads because it's reassuring and costs nothing to post, but it changes nothing about your actual rights.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r07" ] }, { "id": "viral-m-01", "category": "viral", "level": 2, "situation": "For a week now, this has been going around neighborhood groups: “The downtown shop is closing next month. A lot of people are going to lose their jobs. My cousin heard it from someone who works there.” No specific date, no name attached to it.", "question": "What key move would stop it from spreading further?", "options": [ "Look for the source: is there any truth to it? Is there an official announcement from the shop, or coverage in local press?", "Share it to warn the employees", "Wait and see if other people say it too" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "“My cousin heard it” is the classic source of local rumors. It travels person to person, growing at every step. To check: look for a direct source — a statement from the shop, an article — not secondhand accounts. A rumor can hold a grain of truth (a closure being planned) while being completely wrong on dates and reasons. Checking cuts the cycle before it does damage.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "viral-m-02", "category": "viral", "level": 2, "situation": "A message circulates: “A friend of a girl I know got attacked leaving the train station last night. She didn't have her phone on her. The attackers are looking for more victims. NEVER go out alone at night near the station. I'm sharing because it's serious.” No names, no exact date given.", "question": "Why is this source extremely weak?", "options": [ "Because assaults are very rare", "Because the message comes from a friend of a friend of a friend — at every step, facts can shift, and there's no way to check the real story", "Because calling the police is better than sharing" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "“My friend knows someone who…” is a classic rumor trap. The story gets more dramatic with every retelling, and the final message has no verifiable connection to whatever real incident may exist. Before spreading an alert like this, check: is there real official information from the police, an article? If not, it's just amplification of a story nobody can verify.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "viral-m-03", "category": "viral", "level": 2, "situation": "An image with a chart circulates: “New outbreak spotted overseas. Confirmed cases: 150 in one week. Local authorities are asking people to stay cautious.” No date, no source for the chart, and the image itself is blurry.", "question": "Before sharing this alert, what should you check?", "options": [ "Whether 150 is actually a lot", "Just share it because people need to be warned", "The date, the source of the chart — which official body made it — and whether a real health authority is reporting the same thing" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A chart in an image with no source and no date is easy to invent. This alert looks more “serious” because of the chart, but it's missing everything that matters. For a real health alert: check official sites, health authorities, public health bodies. If there's a real risk, they communicate it officially, not through a blurry message found online.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r03" ] }, { "id": "viral-m-04", "category": "viral", "level": 2, "situation": "Message: “Phone towers create viruses. A researcher proved that the signal frequency affects cells. That's why so many people get sick at once. Before they hide this from us, forward it!” No researcher named anywhere in the message.", "question": "What reflex is missing here?", "options": [ "Believing it because it sounds scientific", "Checking the researcher's actual source and consulting other independent experts to cross-check the claim", "Asking for more precise proof" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "The message sounds like a scientific explanation — “frequency affects cells” — without naming the researcher or citing a source. A real scientific finding comes with checkable references. Before passing along a claim from “a researcher,” you need to be able to trace it. If a real discovery existed, multiple respected experts would be reporting it, not just a chain message.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r02" ] }, { "id": "viral-m-05", "category": "viral", "level": 2, "situation": "A status update: “A charity is looking for donors to help kids in the hospital. The kids need toys and things to keep them distracted. Share to help!” No charity named, no website, no actual way to donate given.", "question": "What should you do before sharing?", "options": [ "Look for toys in your attic", "Share it because it's for the kids", "Identify the charity officially: look up its website, its contact details, its reports. Check that it's a real, well-run cause" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A cause can be real, but this version is vague. The charity might exist, but without identification, you have no way to know if donations actually reach anyone. Scams hide behind noble causes all the time. Sharing gives visibility without any guarantee it helps. Finding the real organization means you're actually doing good, not just making noise.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r01" ] }, { "id": "viral-m-06", "category": "viral", "level": 2, "situation": "Urgent message: “A dangerous chemical has been found in a common kids' product. It's causing severe allergies and skin problems. Numbers: over 200 children affected since January. Do NOT give this product to your kids!” No product named, no official link anywhere.", "question": "Why should you check before panicking?", "options": [ "Because a credible alert names the product, the body that detected the problem, and links to an official source", "Because 200 is a small number", "Because allergies aren't serious" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "The message has details — “a chemical,” “200 children” — that make it feel credible. But it hides what matters most: which product? Which substance? Who found this? Real product recalls come from official safety authorities, naming the exact product. Before throwing anything away, check official sites. Otherwise you're spreading panic over nothing specific.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r06" ] }, { "id": "viral-m-07", "category": "viral", "level": 2, "situation": "A message claims to come “from an internal security source”: “New wave of phishing detected. Don't click emails from [a similar-looking domain]. They can empty your account. Report them and warn your contacts.” The message itself looks like a real security alert.", "question": "What's wrong with this method of warning people?", "options": [ "A real security alert comes through verifiable official channels, not an anonymous forwarded message", "Because it should come from a government agency", "Because a real security email never asks to be forwarded" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "The format resembles a genuine technical warning. But a real alert comes from the source itself — the company, the service — through its verified channels: official site, official email. A chain message claiming to be “about security” is exactly the trick: you lower your guard because it sounds urgent and serious. Before following security advice, verify the actual source.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r01" ] }, { "id": "viral-m-08", "category": "viral", "level": 2, "situation": "A message with a photo of a child (a generic image found online): “I have so much love for all of you. I'm a sick kid and I have to leave tomorrow for a long surgery. If 10,000 people share this, my hospital will let me stay longer with my family. Share, it's free!” Signed: “With all my love.”", "question": "Why is this message especially tricky?", "options": [ "Because it's too sad", "Because it plays on emotion and guilt, since helping a kid costs nothing, while being impossible to verify and having no official source at all", "Because hospitals never make offers like that" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "The message combines three traps: emotion (a sick child), urgency (“tomorrow”), and ease (just share). It creates the illusion that you're helping, but no verification is possible — which child, which hospital? It's a generic image that's been recycled online for years. Before sharing an appeal to help a child, check: can you identify the person, the hospital, the surgery? If not, it's just an emotional chain letter.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "viral-m-09", "category": "viral", "level": 2, "situation": "Status: “A university just discovered you can cure diabetes with a plant found overseas. Big pharma is hiding it because it's not profitable. Here's how to find the plant: [link]. Share to save lives!” No university named, no article linked anywhere.", "question": "What's off about this scenario?", "options": [ "Because it's not possible to cure diabetes", "Because a real discovery would be widely known already", "Several things: no university named, an unproven accusation against an entire industry, an unverifiable cure promise, a suspicious link" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "The message checks every box of a fake miracle claim: the secret discovery, the anonymous university, the greedy villains, the miracle fix, and a link that pushes you straight to action. It's built to trigger emotional sharing before any thinking happens. A real major scientific discovery makes headlines in recognized medical journals — it doesn't arrive through a link in a vague message.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r07" ] }, { "id": "viral-m-10", "category": "viral", "level": 2, "situation": "Message: “I can't say everything because it's confidential, but someone I know who works in the industry told me a big change is coming very soon. It's going to affect a lot of people. Get ready!” Very vague, a lot of emotion, no specifics anywhere.", "question": "Why is this a trap?", "options": [ "Because we don't know which industry we're talking about", "Because confidential sources don't exist", "Because the message claims to have a reliable source, “someone in the industry,” but refuses to give any details, which makes it impossible to verify or challenge" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "“I know something I can't tell you” creates suspense and trust — you believe the person really has information, they're just keeping it secret. It's powerful precisely because it avoids anything that could be checked or contradicted. Before passing it on, ask: can this secret be verified at all? If not, it's just a rumor dressed up as an inside source.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r06" ] }, { "id": "viral-c-01", "category": "viral", "level": 3, "situation": "For a week, a message has been spreading: “WARNING: watch for signs of heart trouble in young people. Chest pain, sudden shortness of breath, fainting. If you see this in someone, call for help right away. It's not always serious, but checking costs nothing. One young person in X may have a hidden condition. Share to save a life!” The information sounds legitimate but the sharing is massive.", "question": "What's the right move with information that could be true but is being over-shared?", "options": [ "Check whether a real official campaign exists behind it (health organizations), but also see if it's exaggerated or missing context once you check", "Ignore it because it's shared too much", "Share it because it might save a life" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "This message contains real truth — young people can have heart conditions — but the massive sharing creates disproportionate panic. The true fact gets amplified: “ONE young person in X,” based on what statistic, how reliable? Check whether a real official campaign exists. If so, share that version instead of the chain-letter one. Sometimes viral content isn't false, just distorted.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r09" ] }, { "id": "viral-c-02", "category": "viral", "level": 3, "situation": "A status with a photo of a smiling child: “Hello, I'm a kid with a rare illness. My dream is to get 1 million shares before my birthday, in 2 weeks, so my wish comes true. My family has tried everything. The doctors say that if I have enough love around me, my body can heal. Share your love!” Generic photo, no identification given anywhere.", "question": "Why is sharing this without checking harmful?", "options": [ "Because it's too sad", "Because even with good intentions, sharing an unverified story can amplify a lie or a scam that uses illness to manipulate people", "Because love can't heal anyone" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "The message mixes real emotion — a sick child, a wish — with pseudo-science — “enough love” cures illness. It's a classic emotional-chain format recycled for years, often with generic images. Sharing without checking can spread a scam that manipulates generous people on the back of a real disease. Check: which child, which hospital? Look for specific detail before sharing anything.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r06" ] }, { "id": "viral-c-03", "category": "viral", "level": 3, "situation": "Message: “A lot of products come from countries with weak safety standards. X% of imported food contains pesticide residue that's banned locally. And the authorities know it. Check the labels, buy local!” The X% comes from an article that actually says something different.", "question": "What's the real trap here?", "options": [ "Because you shouldn't buy imported goods", "Because the authorities hide everything", "Mixing a real fact (pesticide residue does exist) with missing context (the % with no source, no comparison benchmark) creates false urgency built on something true" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "The message leans on a real issue — pesticide residue in imports — but presents it with no context: X% compared to what? Verified where? Which product exactly? Mixing truth with interpretation makes it hard to challenge. Before sharing, look for the real source of that percentage and its context. Is it actually as alarming as it sounds?", "reflexes": [ "r09", "r05" ] }, { "id": "viral-c-04", "category": "viral", "level": 3, "situation": "A long testimonial circulates: “I never used to talk. My mother used a communication technique I found in a private group. I practiced for 3 months and now I talk to everyone. The therapists didn't believe it. Now my life has changed. This technique is so powerful they keep it hidden. I'm sharing so others dare to try.” Tons of emotional detail, zero named method anywhere.", "question": "Why is this testimonial persuasive but potentially fake?", "options": [ "Because therapists would agree with it", "Because it tells a complete, credible transformation story, full of emotional detail, without ever naming the technique or giving any checkable context", "Because 3 months is fast" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "The testimonial is structured like a real story: before (silence), specific action (3 months), result (talks to everyone). That's persuasive. But it's missing the crucial detail: which technique, where, with whom? The missing detail makes it unverifiable, and “they keep it hidden” adds mystery that helps it spread. A real therapy has a name, a practitioner, a logic — not a “secret group.”", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r08" ] }, { "id": "viral-c-05", "category": "viral", "level": 3, "situation": "Safety message: “During a natural disaster, the priority is to leave exposed areas. Stay informed through official channels.” This true message gets mixed with versions that say “flee immediately without thinking, it's vital” and others that add “the authorities are going to block the roads, leave now!”", "question": "What's the problem when true information mixes with distorted versions?", "options": [ "Because you should ignore official alerts", "Because everyone says something different", "A true instruction, rewritten by each person who passes it along, degrades and creates false urgency or bad decisions based on the most dramatic version" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "The original instruction was measured and sound. But with each retelling — “flee without thinking,” “authorities are blocking roads” — it turns into unjustified panic. Real official instructions give context (“if you're in zone X”) and a clear priority. Before passing it along, look for the direct official source, not the version that's traveled from mouth to mouth.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02" ] }, { "id": "viral-c-06", "category": "viral", "level": 3, "situation": "Viral article: “A major tech company worsened conditions for its overseas contractors. [SOURCE: a verifiable article from a past year]. Since then, conditions have gotten worse. Recently, they raised shifts to 18 hours a day. [NO SOURCE] Boycott!” The first part is checkable, the second is extrapolated with nothing behind it.", "question": "How do you sort out information that's half true, half speculation?", "options": [ "Separate the verified part (the older source) from the speculation (the 18-hour shifts), check if the second part has any source, and share only the verified part or flag which part still needs checking", "Share the whole thing because the first part is true", "Ignore all of it because it's partly false" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "This is one of the hardest traps: the message leans on a real, documented problem to lend credibility to an unsourced claim. Once you've shared “the true part,” the false part travels right along with it. Before sharing, check whether sources exist for EACH claim, especially the most serious ones.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "viral-c-07", "category": "viral", "level": 3, "situation": "Message: “A group is trying to abduct children in our area. Several reports of suspicious vans with men trying to approach kids. Parents need to be alert 24/7.” Very few details, just the fear. The message spreads massively within days.", "question": "Facing a serious alert on a sensitive topic, what's called for?", "options": [ "Check immediately with the police or official reports; a real alert will have one, a fake one won't, even under time pressure", "Organize a local neighborhood watch", "Share it to protect the children" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Alerts about children are the most powerful because they trigger protective instinct automatically. But that's also perfect terrain for rumors — nobody wants to look indifferent to child safety by questioning it. A real alert: the authorities publish it, with details — date, place, precise description. Before alarming a whole community, check with the authorities themselves.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r01" ] }, { "id": "viral-c-08", "category": "viral", "level": 3, "situation": "A trusted friend — a teacher, a doctor — shares: “I got this from colleagues and it's serious: [a complicated technical or medical message].” The message seems to be relayed by someone credible, but the original source is invisible.", "question": "Why doesn't the relayer's credibility replace checking the source?", "options": [ "Because teachers and doctors are always wrong", "Because a trustworthy person can relay something without having verified it themselves, and their credibility doesn't guarantee the accuracy of the original claim", "Because you should never trust anyone" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A credible teacher or doctor forwarding a message makes it very persuasive. But the relayer might be forwarding it without checking either — “from colleagues” is vague. The chain builds itself: they got it from colleagues who got it from someone else. Before sharing, even if it's your own doctor saying it, ask where this actually comes from. If they don't know, they're relaying it unverified too.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "viral-c-09", "category": "viral", "level": 3, "situation": "Message: “A gray car, partial plate [AB-123], has been seen circling the school three times this week. Looks like a certain sedan model. The driver never gets out. This is probably an organized abduction attempt. Police have been notified. All parents need to be alert.” Lots of detail, sounds official.", "question": "Why can precise detail make a false report more convincing?", "options": [ "Because the plate isn't complete", "Because that car model doesn't make sense", "Because the more specific details there are — make, partial plate — the more checkable and credible it feels, even though the conclusion (“organized abduction”) is an unverified leap" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "False reports gain power through detail. “A car” is vague. “Gray, AB-123, that model” is specific, and therefore feels credible, even though the conclusion comes from nowhere. Someone can legally drive around a school. The message skips straight to the scary conclusion with no evidence. Before sharing, check: “police notified” — really? What did police actually say?", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r09" ] }, { "id": "viral-c-10", "category": "viral", "level": 3, "situation": "A detailed post: “A restaurant chain is about to sign a deal with a factory that uses environmentally dangerous practices. Current employees told me a signature is imminent. I can't give names because they'd risk their jobs. So spread the word quietly so we can push back before it's signed.” Credible-sounding but unverifiable.", "question": "What's the dilemma here?", "options": [ "Because factories always pollute", "Because employees never talk", "The message might be well-founded but is impossible to verify without the source; sharing or not comes down to a choice between trusting it on faith or risking a real injustice going unaddressed" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "This is the hard case: the information could be true — a real deal, real practices — but it's an anonymous allegation. Sharing it amplifies something you can't verify. Not sharing risks letting a real injustice happen quietly. The right move: look for checkable facts (does the company exist, the factory?), then look for other independent sources before relaying only the version you can actually stand behind.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r10" ] }, { "id": "titres-f-01", "category": "titres", "level": 1, "situation": "On a sharing page, you see: “SHOCK: local high school bans phones in class!” You click through. The article explains that the school just adopted a standard policy — no phones during class — like roughly a third of high schools already do.", "question": "What's the trick in the headline?", "options": [ "The word “SHOCK” dramatizes an ordinary, well-known fact", "The article contradicts the headline by calling it a “policy”", "There's no trick, it's a genuine ban" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "The word “SHOCK” is designed to make you feel surprise, but the article reveals something mundane: plenty of schools do the same thing. The headline plays on emotion rather than information. This is classic clickbait: dressing up the ordinary as a scandal.", "reflexes": [ "r07", "r06" ] }, { "id": "titres-f-02", "category": "titres", "level": 1, "situation": "You read: “Does this supplement really cure winter fatigue?” At the bottom of the article, a scientist explains that no reliable study has ever shown any effect at all.", "question": "What does the article actually say?", "options": [ "No, there's no scientific proof it works", "Yes, the supplement works really well", "Maybe: more research is needed" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "The headline poses an open question, but the content gives a clear answer: no. Turning a claim into a question lets the outlet publish a headline without directly stating a lie. Always read the whole article, not just the headline.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r08" ] }, { "id": "titres-f-03", "category": "titres", "level": 1, "situation": "“SCANDAL: town hall buys coffee for its staff with public money!” The article explains that the town spent $40 a month on a coffee machine for the break room, out of a $2.5 million yearly budget.", "question": "Where does the outrage actually come from?", "options": [ "The headline uses “SCANDAL” for a tiny, ordinary purchase compared to the overall budget", "There isn't enough information to judge", "The town is mismanaging money and it really is a scandal" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Putting “SCANDAL” in capital letters creates instant drama. But the article shows it's $40, about 0.0016% of the budget. This is the appearance of scandal with none of the substance behind it. The key move: look for the real numbers and their context.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r09" ] }, { "id": "titres-f-04", "category": "titres", "level": 1, "situation": "Headline: “Botanist discovers a plant that could revolutionize medicine!” In the article, the researcher explains he extracted an interesting molecule in the lab. He says: “This finding opens up avenues worth exploring.”", "question": "What's the key difference?", "options": [ "The headline is even more cautious than the article", "The headline states “revolutionize.” The article says “could” and “worth exploring”", "There's no difference, both describe a major discovery" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "The headline hides the doubt and the conditions attached. “Could” and “worth exploring” mean this is still theoretical, not applicable yet. “Revolutionize” suggests it's already working. Key move: spot fragile words like “could,” “may,” “according to,” which turn a hypothesis into a certainty once they get dropped.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r03" ] }, { "id": "titres-f-05", "category": "titres", "level": 1, "situation": "Headline: “Antibiotics? The minister says it's just a myth.” The article contains the full quote: “When I hear people say antibiotics are a cure-all, I call that a myth — they need to be prescribed at the right time, at the right dose.”", "question": "What did the minister actually say?", "options": [ "That doctors don't know how to use them", "That antibiotics matter but need to be used carefully", "That antibiotics are completely useless" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "The headline cuts the quote off halfway, making the minister say the opposite of what he meant. He's warning against overuse, urging careful prescribing. The headline makes him say it's all a scam. Cutting a quote to flip its meaning is one of the most classic tricks out there. Always look for the full context of a quote.", "reflexes": [ "r05", "r02" ] }, { "id": "titres-f-06", "category": "titres", "level": 1, "situation": "A paper runs: “Berry sales dropped 3% this year.” The article details the numbers, cites official sources, and explains that a sharp rise in prices is the cause.", "question": "Is there a problem with this headline?", "options": [ "Yes, it dramatizes a minor drop", "No, it reports a real, checkable fact clearly", "Yes, it ignores that berries are too expensive" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "This headline is honest: it states a checkable fact, sourced and given context in the article itself. Serious journalism does this too. Being critical doesn't mean suspecting every headline of being a trap. Plenty of journalists do careful, trustworthy work. The move: tell apart who's trying to inform well from who's trying to trap you.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "titres-f-07", "category": "titres", "level": 1, "situation": "“An officer tests a new body camera on the same day crime rates dropped in his city! Read more…” The article shows the drop was actually due to summer closures and a statistical quirk. The camera has no proven connection to it at all.", "question": "What trick is the headline pulling?", "options": [ "It states two simultaneous facts without establishing any causal link between them", "It hides the role of summer closures", "It claims the camera lowers crime" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Putting two facts side by side — A happens, then B happens — lets the reader imagine a cause-and-effect relationship on their own. This is misleading juxtaposition. The article shows there's nothing there. The move: always check the real relationship between two facts placed side by side in a headline.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "titres-f-08", "category": "titres", "level": 1, "situation": "“Flu cases have tripled!” In tiny print below: “compared to a week with zero cases, right before the holidays, when people mostly stayed home.” The real number stays completely normal for the season.", "question": "What's the trick?", "options": [ "There's no trick, tripling flu cases is serious", "The number sounds huge with no context, but the starting point was unusually low", "There's no way to know without more numbers" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "“Tripled” sounds dramatic. But tripling from 3 to 9 cases is very different from tripling from 300 to 900. And if the starting point, right before the holidays, was unusually low, returning to normal isn't a catastrophe. Key move: always ask for the context of a number — where's it coming from, where's it going, compared to what?", "reflexes": [ "r09", "r06" ] }, { "id": "titres-f-09", "category": "titres", "level": 1, "situation": "You read: “[Sponsored Content] This cream transforms your skin in 3 days! Discover the secret dermatologists don't want you to know.” In tiny print at the very top: it's a paid advertisement.", "question": "Who should you believe here?", "options": [ "It's advertising, not journalism — someone paid for it to be written", "Impossible to say, it could be both", "It's genuine reporting from a serious outlet" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "When an article is labeled “Sponsored Content,” it's an ad: someone paid to have it written. The line “what dermatologists don't want you to know” is classic predatory marketing. Words like “secret” and “don't want” build trust through fake rebellion. The move: spot the sponsor label, even in the tiniest print.", "reflexes": [ "r07", "r01" ] }, { "id": "titres-f-10", "category": "titres", "level": 1, "situation": "“You'll NEVER guess why this weather anchor quit!” You click. The article explains he took a better-paying job in another region — something he'd already announced two months earlier.", "question": "What kind of trap is this?", "options": [ "A real revelation that the link is hiding", "A legitimate question nobody can answer", "A suspense headline: manufactured, dressed up as mysterious when it's actually completely transparent" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "“You'll never guess” creates the illusion of a hidden secret, of mystery. But the article tells something ordinary and already known. It's pure theater: pretending something is surprising just to earn the click. The move: don't fall for the staged suspense.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r02" ] }, { "id": "titres-m-01", "category": "titres", "level": 2, "situation": "“Health agency warns: coffee is dangerous for your heart!” You read the article. The agency published a report saying that drinking more than 6 cups a day can be risky for people who already have unstable blood pressure. For most people, 2-3 cups is perfectly fine.", "question": "Does the headline reflect the article?", "options": [ "Impossible to say, you'd need several agencies to weigh in", "Yes, the agency says it's dangerous", "No, it generalizes a warning that targets a very high dose and a specific group of people" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "The headline says “coffee is dangerous,” the article says “at a very high dose, for certain people.” It's not an outright lie, but a misleading generalization. The agency isn't “warning against” coffee, it's adding nuance. Key move: spot when a headline erases nuance — dose, population, context — to dramatize.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r08" ] }, { "id": "titres-m-02", "category": "titres", "level": 2, "situation": "“Officials are considering banning online gaming for minors.” The article reports remarks from a single city council member who said: “We should probably think about this question.” That's a personal musing, not an official proposal of any kind.", "question": "What's the problem?", "options": [ "The article completely contradicts the headline", "It confuses a personal musing with institutional intent: “considering” suggests a real, imminent decision", "The headline reports exact facts" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "“Considering” implies a serious, imminent intention. But a council member saying “we should think about it” commits to nothing at all. This is a very early hypothetical. The headline inflates it further. The move: tell apart “someone's thinking about it” from “it's happening” or even “it's been decided.”", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r03" ] }, { "id": "titres-m-03", "category": "titres", "level": 2, "situation": "“Burnout cases among young people have exploded: up 300%!” The article explains: a few years back it was 100 diagnoses a year; now it's 400. The numbers really did triple, but doctors note it's mostly better diagnosis and more open conversation, not more actual illness.", "question": "Is the headline dishonest?", "options": [ "Yes, tripling isn't an “explosion”", "It's mathematically accurate, but it hides an important cause: better recognition and diagnosis, not a real rise in the condition itself", "The numbers are too small to even talk about" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Tripling is a real change. But “exploded” implies a catastrophic, unexpected increase. The article shows it's mostly improved diagnosis — people used to talk about burnout less, so fewer cases got caught. That's an improvement, not a catastrophe. The move: always check whether a rising number is real or reflects better measurement.", "reflexes": [ "r09", "r02" ] }, { "id": "titres-m-04", "category": "titres", "level": 2, "situation": "You receive an article in a group: over a red banner, “URGENT: serious accident at the train station!” You read it. It's a news brief from 12 days ago. The fake banner was added by an account that recycles old stories for engagement.", "question": "What's the trick?", "options": [ "The headline is a lie, there's no real emergency", "The article describes a real accident, so it's justified", "The “URGENT” banner is staged: the original text never had it, it's a fake addition" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Someone slapped a fake banner on an old article to make it look fresh. This is pure repurposing: the information itself is real, the staging is fake. When a piece is more than a few days old but carries “URGENT” or “LIVE,” check its actual publish date before reacting.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r01" ] }, { "id": "titres-m-05", "category": "titres", "level": 2, "situation": "Headline: “Study shows video games make kids aggressive.” The article quotes a scientist: “We often see a correlation between video game use and aggressive behavior in some kids, but we cannot conclude there's a cause-and-effect relationship.”", "question": "What did the scientist actually say?", "options": [ "That there's a relationship between the two, but no proof of cause", "That video games make kids aggressive", "That there's no link at all" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "“Correlation” means two things often show up together. “Cause and effect” means one makes the other happen. The scientist refuses to claim the second. The headline erases that crucial distinction. Correlation isn't causation — maybe aggressive kids simply pick more violent games, which flips the whole direction. The move: spot when a headline drops a major scientific distinction.", "reflexes": [ "r05", "r08" ] }, { "id": "titres-m-06", "category": "titres", "level": 2, "situation": "An article written in press style: “This startup is revolutionizing solar power with a cell that's 50% more efficient. A major investor is putting in $10 million. Discover their secret…” In tiny print at the bottom: “Sponsored by [the startup].” The startup wrote it itself.", "question": "Who should you believe?", "options": [ "It's advertising: the startup is paying for this, it isn't independent journalism, so check elsewhere", "It's a mix of both, impossible to judge", "It's genuine reporting: a startup made a breakthrough and is looking for investors" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "When something's sponsored, it's paid for. The startup writes its own success story. The journalistic format is the trap: it looks like a neutral article, but it's self-promotion. Even if the underlying fact is true, the source isn't independent. The move: check for the sponsor tag, even in small print — real value shows up elsewhere too.", "reflexes": [ "r07", "r01" ] }, { "id": "titres-m-07", "category": "titres", "level": 2, "situation": "“Education spending rose 2.1% this year, according to national statistics.” The article details the source (the department), year by year figures, and explains that inflation was running at 1.8% over the same period.", "question": "Is this headline a problem?", "options": [ "Yes, it hides that it's barely above inflation", "Yes, it's missing the inflation context", "No, it reports an exact, sourced, contextualized figure, backed by real public data" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "This headline traps nobody: it states a fact, names the source, and lets you check it yourself. The article gives the context. This is how you can headline a budget increase honestly. Good journalism exists. Recognizing a good source is critical thinking too.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "titres-m-08", "category": "titres", "level": 2, "situation": "A local headline reads: “The minister claims our schools are the best in the world.” You notice it's a translation of a foreign article. The original had the minister praising his own country's schools, not yours. The local headline swapped the subject entirely.", "question": "Where does this difference come from?", "options": [ "It's a deliberate translation that changes the story to make it feel relevant to local readers", "It's a copy-paste mistake, not intentional", "The translation is just bad" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Someone translated a foreign article about a foreign school system into a local headline about the local one. This is distortion through translation: even faithfully translated words shift meaning when the context changes. A translated headline can flip a story entirely if it isn't sourced and checkable. The move: check the origin of any translated news.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r01" ] }, { "id": "titres-m-09", "category": "titres", "level": 2, "situation": "“After the pension reform, the number of strikes dropped. The measure eased tensions.” The article shows the drop in strikes also happened in places that never changed pensions at all, thanks to a broader economic upswing and normal seasonal patterns.", "question": "What link is being assumed?", "options": [ "The reform eased tensions", "No link: the drop is due to unrelated external factors", "There's no way to know without more information" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "The headline places two facts side by side — reform, then a drop — and assumes a causal link. The article shows it's a coincidence: everyone saw fewer strikes that month, regardless of any reform. The move: always check whether a causal link assumed by a headline is actually backed up in the article itself.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "titres-m-10", "category": "titres", "level": 2, "situation": "“A well-known cardiologist reveals: you've been missing the simple exercise that saves lives.” The article quotes Dr. Reyes, 67, explaining that walking 30 minutes a day is good for your heart. There's no scientific source at all beyond Dr. Reyes's own claim.", "question": "What should put you on alert?", "options": [ "The doctor is well-known, so it's credible", "“Well-known” means a verified expert, so it's reliable", "The lack of any scientific sources: just one person's opinion, even with a title behind it" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "“A well-known cardiologist” sounds authoritative, but the headline never says how he's “well-known” — publications? a hospital? awards? And the article gives no study to back up the advice. The headline borrows the authority of a title to bypass actual science. The move: tell apart a titled person from a scientifically sourced one. An expert needs evidence, not just a white coat.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r02" ] }, { "id": "titres-c-01", "category": "titres", "level": 3, "situation": "Headline: “Scientist “refutes” the theory of human-caused climate change.” The word “refutes” sits inside quotation marks. The article quotes the scientist saying: “I doubt human activity is the main cause.” No new study is cited anywhere in the piece.", "question": "What's the trick in the headline?", "options": [ "There's no trick, doubt is a refutation", "The quotation marks change the meaning: to refute means to disprove with evidence; “refutes” in quotes lets the headline imply doubt without saying so directly", "The scientist is right, it's a genuine refutation" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Quotation marks can be ironic. Here, the headline puts “refutes” in quotes to suggest: he claims to refute it, but does he really? Then the article shows it's just doubt, not a scientific refutation — no counter-study exists. The subtle move: quotation marks can hollow out a word's meaning. That's a finer trick than simply inventing something outright.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "titres-c-02", "category": "titres", "level": 3, "situation": "“A government report suggests remote work could improve productivity in some sectors.” The article explains the government is only looking into the question. The report itself hasn't come out yet. The “suggestion” comes from a preliminary internal opinion.", "question": "What does the government actually have?", "options": [ "A decision to mandate remote work", "A rough draft, a hypothesis, zero conclusions", "A complete report with firm conclusions" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "“Government report” sounds official and settled. But “suggests” and “could”: this is very hypothetical language. And the article reveals it's a preliminary draft, not a real report yet. The headline borrows heavyweight words for a minor hypothesis. The move: tell apart a hypothesis, a study in progress, and a decision already made. Word choice hides the difference.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r02" ] }, { "id": "titres-c-03", "category": "titres", "level": 3, "situation": "“Women who eat chocolate have less depression.” The article cites a study that says: “Among the women surveyed, those who eat chocolate report fewer depressive symptoms.” But there's no proof of cause — maybe women who already feel better simply crave a treat more?", "question": "What's the trick in the writing?", "options": [ "There's no trick, the study showed a clear link", "The headline implicitly flips the direction of causation: what if it's not the chocolate creating good mood, but good mood creating the craving for chocolate?", "The study is about real depression, so it's easy to verify" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A correlation, seeing two things together, has no built-in direction: does A cause B, or B cause A? Here, both directions are possible. The headline implies the chocolate is a cure — that's cognitive marketing. The article gives the real information: there's a correlation, but the causal order is unknown. The subtle move: check whether a headline assumes a causal direction the study never actually established.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r02" ] }, { "id": "titres-c-04", "category": "titres", "level": 3, "situation": "“An unknown creator launches a channel without checking his facts: proof that young people don't read anymore.” The article reports that the creator made several videos with sloppy information. But the journalist concludes: “There's no evidence this represents young people as a whole.”", "question": "What does the article actually say?", "options": [ "That all young people are lazy", "That platforms should ban this kind of content for young people", "That one case isn't a general proof of anything" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "The headline generalizes a single case into “proof that young people don't read anymore.” One case is an anecdote. Proof is a scientific demonstration. The article says it plainly: this is one example, not proof. The headline plays on the blur between example and proof. The move: demand real evidence — studies, samples — before drawing conclusions about an entire group.", "reflexes": [ "r05", "r02" ] }, { "id": "titres-c-05", "category": "titres", "level": 3, "situation": "“A minister says: the rich should be taxed to help the poor.” The article quotes the full sentence: “When I hear people say the rich should be taxed to help the poor, I wonder who's going to pay for public services.” He's raising a question, not stating his own view.", "question": "Whose idea does the headline actually belong to?", "options": [ "A group of people the minister is paraphrasing, which he's implicitly pushing back on", "The minister, it's his own conviction", "There's no way to tell" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "The headline attributes to the minister a line he's actually quoting in order to question it. It's subtle: grammatically, the headline is lifted straight from the article, but the minister's real intent runs the other way — he isn't saying this, he's challenging it. The very fine move: check whether a direct quote in a headline reflects the speaker's own conviction, or an opinion they're reporting and disputing.", "reflexes": [ "r05", "r01" ] }, { "id": "titres-c-06", "category": "titres", "level": 3, "situation": "A blog post: “Why dermatologists love this miracle treatment — the answer will surprise you!” In tiny gray print at the top: “sponsored.” No other marker anywhere. The text mimics a beauty-advice blog, professional photo, an influencer's recommendation included.", "question": "Where's the danger here?", "options": [ "The sponsor label is technically visible but the format is deceptive — it reads too much like a friend's neutral advice, not like an ad", "There's no danger, it's clearly an ad", "The content itself is false" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "The sponsor label exists, but it drowns in a convincing blog layout. A reader skimming fast will miss it entirely. Worse: the format imitates a personal opinion, not an institutional ad. This is disguise at a subtle level. The move: even in tiny print, the sponsor tag counts, but you also need to notice when the FORMAT itself is designed to feel like a friend's tip.", "reflexes": [ "r07", "r01" ] }, { "id": "titres-c-07", "category": "titres", "level": 3, "situation": "A headline poses this question: “Why is the government hiding the truth?” It sits atop an article that reports plain official facts — budget figures, statistics — with zero evidence of any cover-up anywhere in the piece.", "question": "What's the logical trap?", "options": [ "There's no trap, it's a genuine question", "The government really is hiding something", "The question format presupposes the answer: asking “why” already assumes there's something being hidden" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "“Why is he hiding it?” already means “he's hiding it, explain why.” That's a presupposition: asking the question already assumes the answer. It's subtler than a direct claim. The article proves nothing, but the question in the headline has already done the persuading. The move: be wary of question-headlines that presuppose a dramatic answer.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r05" ] }, { "id": "titres-c-08", "category": "titres", "level": 3, "situation": "“Electric car sales dropped 15% this year.” That's true. But the article explains that subsidies changed, and compared to a few years back, before the boom, sales are still 5 times higher than they used to be. The headline doesn't lie, but it hides the bigger picture entirely.", "question": "What does the number really tell you?", "options": [ "That electric cars aren't selling at all anymore", "That there's a temporary dip, but the long-term trend still strongly favors electric", "That the electric car market is collapsing" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A raw number with no historical context can lie by omission. “Down 15%” is true, but it's a drop from an exceptional peak, not a collapse. The same trick applies to year-over-year versus decade-over-decade comparisons. The advanced move: an honest number can still mislead by hiding the bigger picture. Check what it's actually being compared against.", "reflexes": [ "r09", "r02" ] }, { "id": "titres-c-09", "category": "titres", "level": 3, "situation": "“An unknown scientist claims to have found a method against Alzheimer's.” The article explains the researcher has early lab results on cells, and that it will take 10-15 years before any real treatment could exist. His university has confirmed his affiliation, and his work has gone through peer review.", "question": "Is this headline a problem?", "options": [ "Yes, it's a false alarm", "No, it's a genuine, early-stage discovery worth following with interest but without false hope — the scientist is credible but the stage is very early", "There's no way to tell" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Here, the word “unknown” in the headline might sound suspicious, but the article describes a legitimate process: early results, peer review, years to go before any application. That's honest reporting on the researcher's part. The move against cynicism: early, responsible news from a properly affiliated researcher deserves genuine interest, even if it won't change the world tomorrow. Critical thinking isn't the same as reflexive doubt.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r01" ] }, { "id": "titres-c-10", "category": "titres", "level": 3, "situation": "A simple, plain headline: “Fruit prices rose 8% this year.” This is statistically accurate. The article gives sources (a trade office), years compared, and the reason — poor growing conditions in producing regions. No dramatic language anywhere, just real information.", "question": "What trap do you spot here?", "options": [ "Fruit really does cost more now", "No trap: this is real information, honestly reported", "It's missing a comparison with people's wages" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "There isn't always a trap. Good journalism exists. This headline reports a fact, sourced, given context, without dramatizing anything. No manipulation technique in sight. Recognizing genuine, solid information matters just as much as spotting traps. Critical thinking means looking for quality, not suspecting everything. The move: trust serious, checkable sources — that's critical thinking too.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "complot-f-01", "category": "complot", "level": 1, "situation": "At a school board meeting, a mother says: “The cafeteria is changing Wednesday's menu? That's to hide the real quality of the food from us. The principals are keeping it to themselves. You'll see, the proof is coming soon.”", "question": "What's badly missing from this reasoning?", "options": [ "The name of the person who announced the change", "Actual facts to support the idea", "A comparison with other schools" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "“They're hiding everything from us” is a conclusion with not a single clue behind it. The proof promised “soon” never actually arrives — that's already a signal. Before accusing anyone: ask WHY the menu is changing, look at the observable facts, and search for an ordinary explanation first.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "complot-f-02", "category": "complot", "level": 1, "situation": "In a local online community group, someone shares a link saying: “Most people believe the lies the sports club tells. You, though, you're smart enough to see the hidden truth. Read this and you'll understand they've been scamming everyone for years.”", "question": "What role does this message play, beyond the information itself?", "options": [ "It gives a credible source", "It cites precise dates", "It flatters you by saying you're smarter than everyone else" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "“You're awake, the others just follow the herd” is pure manipulation. It proves nothing, it just makes the reader feel special. Critical thinking means reading the evidence, not accepting an idea because it flatters you.", "reflexes": [ "r07", "r10" ] }, { "id": "complot-f-03", "category": "complot", "level": 1, "situation": "A shopkeeper claims: “The price of this dresser went up the exact day the mayor visited the store. Coincidence? I don't think so. They struck a deal to raise prices and ruin us.”", "question": "Why isn't this link between the visit date and the price hike proof of anything?", "options": [ "Because there's no written document to see", "Because two things can happen on the same day without one causing the other", "Because the mayor has no power to change prices" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Lots of things happen every day. Two events sharing a date doesn't prove a cause-and-effect relationship. To establish a secret deal, you need direct evidence: communications, documents, verifiable witnesses — not just dates that happen to line up.", "reflexes": [ "r06", "r10" ] }, { "id": "complot-f-04", "category": "complot", "level": 1, "situation": "Someone at a café declares: “Nobody has ever seen the real recipe for that bakery's bread down the street. That's proof they're keeping it secret on purpose for something shady.”", "question": "What's wrong with this reasoning?", "options": [ "Asking a baker for their recipe is disrespectful", "Secret recipes only exist in movies", "Most business owners keep recipes secret without any wrongdoing — it's just normal business practice" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Trade secrets are normal and mundane. Saying “you won't show me your recipe, so you're hiding something bad” is a flawed argument. Absence of evidence is never evidence of anything. You need positive elements — complaints, real harm, actual witnesses — not just silence.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r10" ] }, { "id": "complot-f-05", "category": "complot", "level": 1, "situation": "A message circulates: “A former employee at the city park told me the yearly closure for maintenance is just a cover story. They're actually turning the park into a secret zone. But he can't say this under his real name, he'd risk his job.”", "question": "What problem does this testimony raise?", "options": [ "There's no way to verify who's talking, or even whether this person exists at all", "The employee would have good reason to be scared", "It's a city park, so it must be official" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "“A friend told me privately” or “an anonymous employee revealed this to me” is unverifiable. It could be true, that's possible, but you can't confirm it. A real scandal rests on named sources, documents, and public investigations you can actually examine.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "complot-f-06", "category": "complot", "level": 1, "situation": "In a parents' group, someone writes: “City hall wants to cut bus line 7. Makes sense: they make more money if we all have to pay for pricier transport! It's a conspiracy.”", "question": "Why isn't “follow who benefits” enough to prove a conspiracy?", "options": [ "Because it's easy to find someone who benefits from almost any decision, without any proof of scheming", "Because city hall would need to hold a vote", "Because city hall doesn't manage money" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Someone always benefits from something. But who gains is not the same as who conspired. If a road closes, the nearby motels get more customers, but that's not why roads get closed. You need evidence of the plot itself: hidden documents, secret communications, or at least multiple sources reporting the same detailed plan.", "reflexes": [ "r07", "r10" ] }, { "id": "complot-f-07", "category": "complot", "level": 1, "situation": "A PDF circulates, claiming to be “a confidential memo from the neighborhood club's board.” It says they're going to close the field to young players. Someone shares it saying: “Look, proof they're lying to the public!”", "question": "Before believing this document, what's missing?", "options": [ "The club's logo on it", "A way to verify where it actually came from and whether it's a real official document", "The date written at the top" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A PDF can be created by anyone in five minutes. Without confirming the source — the original document from the club, an investigative journalist, a named source inside the organization — you have no way of knowing if it's a real memo or a hoax. Real investigative journalism always names its sources.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r04" ] }, { "id": "complot-f-08", "category": "complot", "level": 1, "situation": "Someone says: “We were told electric cars were good for the environment. And before that, people believed tobacco wasn't toxic. So all of today's scientists must be wrong too.”", "question": "What's wrong with this comparison?", "options": [ "Science didn't have enough data back then", "Cars still pollute a lot", "The fact that science got things wrong in the past doesn't prove it's wrong about everything today, or that this particular conspiracy is real" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Yes, mistakes happened in the past. That's exactly why we now have better evidence and better checks in place. Using “science was wrong before” as a universal excuse to dismiss any information short-circuits actual reasoning. The right reflex: look at the current evidence, check who produced it — don't imagine a conspiracy just because a past mistake exists.", "reflexes": [ "r08", "r10" ] }, { "id": "complot-f-09", "category": "complot", "level": 1, "situation": "A local article mentions three things happening this week: a road closed for construction, the school principal out sick, and the town's Wi-Fi down. Someone online writes: “Three outages the SAME DAY? That's a test run before something bigger! They're preparing something…”", "question": "Why don't three real events in the same week prove a conspiracy?", "options": [ "Because nobody has the power to cause three things at once", "Because all three have simple, independent, checkable causes", "Because it never happens three times" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Coincidences happen. In any given week, lots of things can occur purely by chance. Linking simple events — planned roadwork, an illness, a network repair — into a conspiracy needs a much better reason than a shared date. Check the simple explanation first: the roadwork was scheduled, the principal was sick, the Wi-Fi needed maintenance.", "reflexes": [ "r10", "r06" ] }, { "id": "complot-f-10", "category": "complot", "level": 1, "situation": "A parent asks the school board: “Why did the menus change? I'd like to understand the reasons.” The principal explains the new suppliers. Another parent jumps in: “Yeah right, it's a conspiracy to feed us cheaper food. I'm sure of it.”", "question": "What's the difference between the two parents?", "options": [ "The first one didn't understand the explanation", "The first asks for facts, the second asserts something with no proof", "The first is nice, the second is aggressive" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "Asking an honest question is healthy: “why is that?” is a good instinct. Jumping straight to “it's a conspiracy!” with no evidence is different. You're allowed to doubt an explanation, that's fine. But doubt without evidence doesn't let you conclude anything. Stay in question mode: “I'd like to see the old menus and the new ones” — and if you're shown them, you check.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r10" ] }, { "id": "complot-m-01", "category": "complot", "level": 2, "situation": "A video claims: “Lumber prices are rising because suppliers and carpenters secretly agreed to ruin us together.” The video asks: “How many workers, drivers, and owners would have to stay quiet? And yet, they do!”", "question": "What problem makes this conspiracy hard to believe, even hypothetically?", "options": [ "Because there aren't enough lumber suppliers", "Because carpenters never agree with each other on anything", "For hundreds of people to keep silent about a secret plan would require a conspiracy so massive it's barely realistic" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "The bigger the conspiracy, the more people it requires to stay silent. Keeping a secret among 5 friends? Possible, if rare. Among 200 workers, drivers, and owners? Nearly impossible — someone would talk. A real corruption case usually surfaces for a specific reason: a whistleblower, documents, an investigation. Not just flawless, universal silence.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r06" ] }, { "id": "complot-m-02", "category": "complot", "level": 2, "situation": "Two messages circulate about cafeteria prices. The first: “I've noticed the portions seem smaller than before. I wonder if prices went up while portions went down.” The second: “IT'S OFFICIAL — the cafeteria is shrinking portions and raising prices. A conspiracy by the people in charge to make us poorer. Look!”", "question": "What sets the first message apart from the second?", "options": [ "The first describes an observation and asks a question, the second states certainty with no proof", "The first is longer", "The second cites a source" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Observing and wondering is critical thinking that actually works. “I noticed… I wonder if…” leaves room to check. “IT'S OFFICIAL” with no sources is a rushed conclusion. The right method: weigh the portions before and after, keep the receipts, ask management for past years' prices. The data settles it.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r09" ] }, { "id": "complot-m-03", "category": "complot", "level": 2, "situation": "A long post circulates: “Have you noticed the downtown movie theater closed? That's not a coincidence. Local officials are hiding it, but there's a plan to get rid of every public gathering place and keep us all at home. Look around, you'll see the signs everywhere!”", "question": "What's missing for this reasoning to be taken seriously?", "options": [ "A single piece of tangible proof: a document, a hidden official statement, a named testimony, or actual data", "A connection to other theater closures", "An explanation of why officials would do this" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "“It's being hidden!” with no way of showing how you know that isn't an argument. A real uncovered conspiracy rests on something concrete: a journalist revealing documents, a named whistleblower, or at least a chain of testable evidence. “Look, you'll see!” really means “go find the proof I can't show you myself” — a bad sign.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r06" ] }, { "id": "complot-m-04", "category": "complot", "level": 2, "situation": "A parent writes: “Ever since they renovated the public pool, there haven't been any more water quality test results posted. They stopped publishing them. Why? Because something's wrong and they're hiding it.”", "question": "What might be missing from this argument?", "options": [ "A receipt confirmation from the town", "First, check whether the tests are actually required by law, available somewhere else, or genuinely hidden — not just invisible to you", "A doctor confirming it" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "“I don't see X, so X is being hidden” is a leap. The results could be stored elsewhere, published by a different oversight body, or simply not shown directly to visitors. Before concluding “it's a conspiracy,” check: ask the town directly, look on the health department's site, call the oversight body. You need to know first whether it's actually hidden.", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r03" ] }, { "id": "complot-m-05", "category": "complot", "level": 2, "situation": "Coffee prices at the local café went up by 50 cents. Two explanations coexist: (1) inflation hit coffee, imported beans cost more now. (2) It's a conspiracy by big coffee chains to enrich small cafés as accomplices and ruin low-income households.", "question": "Which explanation should you consider first?", "options": [ "The conspiracy, because it explains more", "Both at the same time", "The simple explanation: inflation and rising import costs" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "When two explanations exist, start with the simplest one that doesn't require a hidden conspiracy. Inflation? Easy to check: compare coffee prices at other cafés, ask the owner, look up import rates. If it fits, you have your answer. Inventing a conspiracy without evidence is choosing the long road for no reason.", "reflexes": [ "r10", "r06" ] }, { "id": "complot-m-06", "category": "complot", "level": 2, "situation": "A group called “They Know” shares theories about city council decisions. Every post starts with: “The sheep in this town see nothing. But we think for ourselves. Look how we figured out…”", "question": "What psychological bias is this group using?", "options": [ "A taste for mystery", "Flattery: making the reader feel smarter and more moral than everyone else", "Dark humor" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "“You're awake, they're following the herd, I think for myself” is a classic psychological weapon. It builds a tribe: the special people who “know,” versus the sheep. You can think for yourself AND check the evidence. Critical thinking isn't the opposite of trust: it's demanding proof from EVERYONE, including the groups that flatter you.", "reflexes": [ "r07", "r10" ] }, { "id": "complot-m-07", "category": "complot", "level": 2, "situation": "Someone builds a chart linking store closures to the mayor's absences over three months. “Look at the pattern! Every closure happens two days before a mayor's absence. It's organized to clear out the area!”", "question": "Why doesn't linking events by date make them actually connected?", "options": [ "Because the mayor is always in town", "Because stores close for no reason", "Because you can connect almost any events if you search long enough for a pattern that seems to fit" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "It's easy to find patterns in raw data. If you track 50 things a month, you'll find “coincidences” just from math alone. Closure plus absence equals ah, a pattern! But the absence might have nothing to do with it. The real test: does this pattern predict the next event? If not, it was just chance.", "reflexes": [ "r09", "r10" ] }, { "id": "complot-m-08", "category": "complot", "level": 2, "situation": "Two accounts coexist about a fee increase. (1) A local paper article quotes the department head explaining the new costs, by name. (2) An anonymous message says: “I work there, I was told it's a lie for the press and the real orders come from above to make us poorer.”", "question": "Why is the first one more reliable than the second?", "options": [ "Because the first names its source and holds them accountable if it's false; the second could be a hoax or a lie with zero consequence", "Because the department head never makes mistakes", "Because journalists always know everything" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Named sources have a reputation to protect. If the department head lies in the paper and gets caught, it costs him. Anonymous sources have zero consequence. They could be angry, motivated, ill-intentioned, or just playing a prank. A real whistleblower protects their identity but still shows up, in person, to someone accountable.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "complot-m-09", "category": "complot", "level": 2, "situation": "A post says: “Bus fares went up 400% in 20 years! That's legalized robbery. Proof that the city is stealing from us.” (The real price: went from 50 cents to $2.)", "question": "What makes this number misleading?", "options": [ "The percentage increase is huge on a very low starting price; you need to weigh the real value and general inflation", "20 years is too long a span to compare", "The percentage doesn't really exist" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "400% on 50 cents equals $2. That's a real increase, but between then and now, general inflation reduced the value of money across the board. Before shouting “robbery,” compare: did coffee prices rise too? Wages? Other transit systems? A number alone screams conspiracy. With context, it's often just normal.", "reflexes": [ "r09", "r10" ] }, { "id": "complot-m-10", "category": "complot", "level": 2, "situation": "A group publicly asks why the pool closes every summer for “maintenance.” Three years later, an independent audit reveals there were leaks that had been left to worsen. The group was right to ask, but their explanation (a conspiracy) was wrong; the real reason was more mundane (poor management).", "question": "What does this case teach us?", "options": [ "Doubting and asking questions is good; concluding it's a conspiracy without proof was a mistake, even though the initial suspicion was healthy", "The authorities were right about everything", "The group was right about everything" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "This case shows you can be right to ask questions (“why is this closed?”) but wrong to answer without evidence (“it's a conspiracy!”). The real answer came from the audit, not from the theory. Critical thinking applies to YOUR doubts too: stay skeptical, keep asking, but change your mind when the facts call for it.", "reflexes": [ "r10", "r02" ] }, { "id": "complot-c-01", "category": "complot", "level": 3, "situation": "An investigative journalist reveals, through documents and named witnesses, that a local transport company was falsifying its safety inspection results. The investigation took two years. Meanwhile, online forums claimed “it's a conspiracy by the union to destroy them.”", "question": "What sets the real case apart from the wrongly suspected conspiracy?", "options": [ "It's a matter of opinion", "The real case is simply more serious", "The real case rests on documents, named accountable sources, and a verifiable investigation; the suspected conspiracy had only suspicion" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "A real scandal uncovered through investigation isn't a conspiracy, it's a discovered case. The difference: solid evidence, verifiable journalistic work, witnesses who put their own reputation on the line. Unproven theories often anticipate a real problem, but without evidence, they stay speculation. Don't confuse “I suspected something” with “I discovered something.”", "reflexes": [ "r02", "r01" ] }, { "id": "complot-c-02", "category": "complot", "level": 3, "situation": "A factory applies for a permit to renovate. Residents ask for before/after pollution test results. The factory refuses to share them, saying “that's confidential by law.” Citizens cry conspiracy. A journalist investigates, obtains the documents through a public records request, and the numbers turn out ordinary. But the initial refusal really did look suspicious.", "question": "What does this teach about doubt?", "options": [ "Being skeptical of a refusal is healthy, but believing a denial without checking is just as naive as believing a conspiracy without proof", "The factory had a good reason to refuse", "The citizens were completely right" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Doubt should apply to EVERYONE: authorities, factories, conspiracy-minded groups alike. “Why refuse?” is a good question. But “they refused, so it's hidden” and “they refused, so it's legitimate” are both extremes. The right reaction: push, use legal tools, verify. The refusal could be shady or just procedural. You have to investigate, not guess.", "reflexes": [ "r10", "r02" ] }, { "id": "complot-c-03", "category": "complot", "level": 3, "situation": "Someone posts online: “Three school principals all changed at the same time in town. Coincidence? Ask yourself why the district is pushing them out!” Local residents get worried. But a quick search shows all three principals were retiring at the same time — a natural, well-documented career cycle.", "question": "How do you tell whether a coincidence is suspicious or ordinary?", "options": [ "You look first for the simple, documented explanation; here, it's retirement, visible in public records", "You trust your gut feeling", "You believe whatever the post suggests" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "A “suspicious” coincidence can turn out to be completely normal once you have the context. Three departures the same year? Common if it was the same hiring cohort. Public records show retirement dates. Critical thinking means: before shouting conspiracy, go look for the public data that explains the coincidence. Often, it does.", "reflexes": [ "r03", "r10" ] }, { "id": "complot-c-04", "category": "complot", "level": 3, "situation": "Movie ticket prices went up $3 over three years. A group demands an investigation, claiming: “This is designed to keep the theater out of reach for low-income families.” The theater's management shows its public accounting: maintenance costs more than doubled, and wages rose with inflation. The theater's margins actually shrank.", "question": "Why isn't there a conspiracy here, despite the price hike?", "options": [ "Because the increase is small", "Because every party involved is acting on ordinary economic logic, not a deliberate intent to exclude anyone", "Because there are several other theaters" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "A suspicious-looking outcome (poorer families getting priced out) doesn't require a suspicious intent behind it. Someone can be squeezed by rising costs without anyone having plotted it. A manager raising prices to stay afloat isn't a conspirator, they're managing. Malicious intent is hard to prove; look first for the “I had no other choice” explanation.", "reflexes": [ "r07", "r10" ] }, { "id": "complot-c-05", "category": "complot", "level": 3, "situation": "Residents of a neighborhood, convinced a factory was hiding a “chemical conspiracy against us,” demand an independent environmental test. The results reveal real pollution, but it turns out to be incompetent waste management, not a deliberate scheme. A disciplinary investigation follows. The conspiracy theory was wrong; the underlying suspicion was useful.", "question": "What does this teach us?", "options": [ "The people who believed in the conspiracy were right", "No conspiracy happened, so they should have been left alone", "Sometimes, conspiracy-driven paranoia pushes people to check, and uncovers a real but ordinary wrongdoing — not a conspiracy, but a genuine problem" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "The conspiracy theory turned out false (no deliberate plan), but the underlying question was good (is there a real risk?). Checking often leads to the truth: not a secret plot, but negligence, incompetence, poor management. The lesson: ask for verification even if your suspicion is off-base. But stay humble — you'll learn how things actually work.", "reflexes": [ "r10", "r02" ] }, { "id": "complot-c-06", "category": "complot", "level": 3, "situation": "An argument circulates: “Either the cafeteria uses the best ingredients like it claims, or it's secretly poisoning us. There's no middle ground.” In reality, it uses standard, decent, non-organic ingredients because of budget constraints.", "question": "Why is this either/or framing misleading?", "options": [ "Because standard ingredients are all bad", "Because reality almost always allows for nuance between “perfect” and “malicious”; a standard cafeteria is neither a scam nor a premium service", "Because the cafeteria has no choice in anything" ], "answer": 1, "explanation": "“Either a wonderful conspiracy or a horrible one” erases the possibility of normal. Most organizations operate in the middle: not perfect, not malicious, working within a budget, doing their reasonable best. Accepting nuance — “it's standard, neither scandalous nor amazing” — is critical thinking applied to messy, ordinary reality. Reject false binaries.", "reflexes": [ "r10", "r06" ] }, { "id": "complot-c-07", "category": "complot", "level": 3, "situation": "The mayor closes a road for public works. Shopkeepers cry conspiracy: “He wants to ruin us before the election!” Three months later, the work finishes, the neighborhood's business rebounds, and it turns out the mayor had no electoral motive at all. In hindsight, he should have announced the timeline and a support plan for small businesses in advance.", "question": "What could have prevented the conspiracy theory from taking hold?", "options": [ "Asking every shopkeeper for their opinion", "Leaving the road closed even longer", "Honest, advance communication: “here's the work, here's how long, here's the support we're offering” — suspicion is born from a lack of information" ], "answer": 2, "explanation": "Conspiracy theories are born when information is missing. A decision-maker who hides their intentions feeds suspicion, even without meaning to. Even without any real conspiracy, poor communication creates room for theories to grow. The lesson: transparency and clarity — here's why, here's when, here's how — reduces distrust. And if you're wrong anyway, you adjust. Trust is built through communication, not assumed good faith.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "complot-c-08", "category": "complot", "level": 3, "situation": "A person convinced of a “secret code” hidden in city council votes analyzes every decision, hunting for patterns. “Look, they voted at 8:33! Three-three! A code for a secret arrangement!” She sees signs everywhere. A psychologist might say she's experiencing apophenia — seeing patterns where none exist.", "question": "Why is seeing hidden signs in numbers or coincidences dangerous?", "options": [ "Because our brains always find patterns, even in pure random noise; without critical filtering, you become blind to real information", "Because secret codes don't exist", "Because 8:33 isn't a special time at all" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "Your brain is excellent at finding patterns — that instinct once helped avoid predators. But in today's noisy flood of information, that same skill becomes a bug. You see codes everywhere because that's just how your brain works. The defense: look for patterns that PREDICT something observable, not just patterns in raw numbers. Otherwise, you're manufacturing meaning out of noise — a real form of losing touch with reality.", "reflexes": [ "r10", "r06" ] }, { "id": "complot-c-09", "category": "complot", "level": 3, "situation": "A genuine whistleblower with access to internal documents revealed that a healthcare company was faking its data. At the same time, online forums claimed, with zero evidence, that the same company “controls our minds.” Both were talking about the same company, but one had proof, the other had paranoia.", "question": "Why is one a civic act and the other a conspiracy theory?", "options": [ "Because the first cites verifiable documents and a named, accountable source; the second asserts things with no way to check them", "Because both are talking about the same company", "Because one claim is more serious than the other" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "A whistleblower shows the evidence: documents, a chain of accountability, a call for investigation. A conspiracy theory asserts things with no way to verify them. Both can target the same organization, but the difference lies in the method. Do you have documents? A named, accountable source? Or just “I just know”? That's the line between a real alert and a fantasy.", "reflexes": [ "r01", "r02" ] }, { "id": "complot-c-10", "category": "complot", "level": 3, "situation": "A group was convinced a bus line was being cut as “a conspiracy against low-income riders.” They organized, collected ridership data, and showed the cut caused a real transit inequality. The city restored an alternative line. They were right that the cut was harmful, but the real reason was budget cuts, not a conspiracy, and they changed the outcome through civic action, not through theory.", "question": "What does this case teach us?", "options": [ "A conspiracy belief can be false, but the underlying question can still be good and lead to real change; true critical thinking also means updating your view of WHY once you have the facts", "The authorities were right about everything", "The group was right about everything" ], "answer": 0, "explanation": "This case shows you can suspect a conspiracy, find out it was wrong, and STILL be right that something needed to change. The difference: once you have real data (the transit impact), your action is built on that, not on the theory. You say “the cut hurts low-income riders” (proven), not “it's a conspiracy” (unverifiable). True critical thinking means being ready to admit: “I was wrong about the why, but right that there was a problem.”", "reflexes": [ "r10", "r02" ] } ] }