“They're hiding everything”

30 cases in this category

Easy

What's badly missing from this reasoning?

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 will come out.”

The name of the person who announced the change
Actual facts to support the idea
A comparison with other schools

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Actual facts to support the idea

“They're hiding everything from us” is a conclusion with not a single clue behind it, and the proof promised for later never actually arrives. That silence is already a signal. Before accusing anyone: ask WHY the menu is changing, look at the observable facts, and search for an ordinary explanation first.

Related reflex(es): 1. Who is speaking? · 2. What's the source?

What role does this message play, beyond the information itself?

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.”

It gives a credible source
It cites precise dates
It flatters you for not being fooled

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: It flatters you for not being fooled

“You're awake, the others just follow the herd” is pure manipulation: it tells you that you are smarter than everyone else, which proves nothing and simply makes the reader feel special. Critical thinking means reading the evidence, not accepting an idea because it flatters you.

Why isn't this link between the visit date and the price hike proof of anything?

A shopkeeper claims: “The price of this dresser went up the exact day the mayor visited the shop. Coincidence? I don't think so. They struck a deal to raise prices and ruin us.”

Because there's no written document to see
Because two things can share a date by chance
Because the mayor has no power to change prices

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Because two things can share a date by chance

Lots of things happen every day, so two events sharing a date proves no cause-and-effect relationship at all: one did not have to cause the other. To establish a secret deal you need direct evidence, namely communications, documents, verifiable witnesses, not just dates that happen to line up.

What's wrong with this reasoning?

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.”

Asking a baker for their recipe is disrespectful
Secret recipes only exist in films
Keeping a recipe secret is ordinary business

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Keeping a recipe secret is ordinary business

Trade secrets are normal and mundane: most business owners keep a recipe to themselves without any wrongdoing whatsoever. Saying “you won't show me your recipe, so you're hiding something bad” is a flawed argument, because absence of evidence is never evidence of anything. You need positive elements: complaints, real harm, actual witnesses, not just silence.

What problem does this testimony raise?

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.”

There's no way to check who is talking
The employee would have good reason to be scared
It's a city park, so it must be official

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: There's no way to check who is talking

“A friend told me privately” or “an anonymous employee revealed this to me” is unverifiable: you cannot confirm who is speaking, or even that the person exists. It could be true, that's possible, but a real scandal rests on named sources, documents, and public investigations you can actually examine.

Related reflex(es): 1. Who is speaking? · 2. What's the source?

Why isn't “follow who benefits” enough to prove a conspiracy?

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.”

Because someone benefits from nearly every decision
Because city hall would need to hold a vote
Because city hall doesn't manage money

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Because someone benefits from nearly every decision

Someone always benefits from something, and finding that someone takes no effort. But who gains is not the same as who conspired. If a road closes, the nearby motels get more customers, and that is not why roads get closed. You need evidence of the plot itself: hidden documents, secret communications, or at least several sources reporting the same detailed plan.

Before believing this document, what's missing?

A PDF circulates, claiming to be “a confidential memo from the neighbourhood 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!”

The club's logo on it
Any way of checking where it came from
The date written at the top

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Any way of checking where it came from

A PDF can be created by anyone in five minutes, so the question is whether this is a real official document at all. Without confirming the source (the original document from the club, an investigative journalist, a named source inside the organisation), you have no way of knowing whether it's a genuine memo or a hoax. Real investigative journalism always names its sources.

What's wrong with this comparison?

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.”

Science didn't have enough data back then
Cars still pollute a lot
Past mistakes don't make today's science wrong

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Past mistakes don't make today's science wrong

Yes, mistakes happened in the past. That's exactly why we now have better evidence and better checks in place. That science got things wrong before proves nothing about what it says today, and certainly not that this particular conspiracy is real. 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, and check who produced it.

Why don't three real events in the same week prove a conspiracy?

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…”

Because nobody has the power to cause three things at once
Because each has its own ordinary cause
Because it never happens three times

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Because each has its own ordinary cause

Coincidences happen: in any given week, lots of things occur purely by chance, and each of these three has a simple, independent, checkable cause. Linking planned roadwork, an illness and 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 ill, the network needed maintenance.

What's the difference between the two parents?

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.”

The first one didn't understand the explanation
One asks, the other asserts
The first is nice, the second is aggressive

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: One asks, the other asserts

Asking an honest question is healthy: “why is that?” is a good instinct. Asserting “it's a conspiracy!” with no evidence is something else entirely. 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.

Related reflex(es): 1. Who is speaking? · 10. What if I'm the one who's wrong?

Medium

What problem makes this conspiracy hard to believe, even hypothetically?

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!”

Because there aren't enough lumber suppliers
Because carpenters never agree with each other on anything
Hundreds of people would all have to stay silent

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Hundreds of people would all have to stay silent

The bigger the conspiracy, the more people it requires to stay silent, until it is barely realistic. 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, namely a whistleblower, documents, an investigation. Not flawless, universal silence.

Related reflex(es): 1. Who is speaking? · 6. Too good to be true?

What sets the first message apart from the second?

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!”

One asks, one declares
The first is longer
The second cites a source

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: One asks, one declares

Observing and wondering is critical thinking that actually works: the first message describes what it saw and asks a question, which leaves room to check. “IT'S OFFICIAL,” with no source, is certainty without proof. The right method: weigh the portions before and after, keep the receipts, ask management for past years' prices. The data settles it.

Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 9. Does the number have context?

What's missing for this reasoning to be taken seriously?

A long post circulates: “Have you noticed the local cinema 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!”

One piece of tangible proof
A connection to other cinema closures
An explanation of why officials would do this

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: One piece of tangible proof

“It's being hidden!” with no way of showing how you know that isn't an argument. What is missing is one tangible thing: a document, a statement, a named testimony, actual data. 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 and find the proof I can't show you,” which is a bad sign.

Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 6. Too good to be true?

What might be missing from this argument?

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.”

A receipt confirmation from the town
Whether they are hidden, or just elsewhere
A doctor confirming it

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Whether they are hidden, or just elsewhere

“I can't see it, so it is being hidden” is a leap. The results could be held by another body, published somewhere you haven't looked, or simply not displayed to visitors, and they may not even be required to be posted. Before concluding “it's a conspiracy,” ask the town directly, look on the health authority's site, call the oversight body. You need to know first whether it is actually hidden, or only invisible to you.

Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 3. What's the date?

Which explanation should you consider first?

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.

The conspiracy, because it explains more
Both at the same time
The simple one: inflation on imported beans

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: The simple one: inflation on imported beans

When two explanations exist, start with the simplest one that doesn't require a hidden conspiracy. Inflation and rising import costs are 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.

What psychological bias is this group using?

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…”

A taste for mystery
Flattery
Dark humour

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Flattery

“You're awake, they're following the herd, I think for myself” is a classic psychological weapon: it makes the reader feel smarter and more moral than everyone else. It builds a tribe, the special people who “know,” against 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.

Why doesn't linking events by date make them actually connected?

Someone builds a chart linking shop 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 organised to clear out the area!”

Because the mayor is always in town
Because shops close for no reason
Because any events can be linked if you hunt

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Because any events can be linked if you hunt

It's easy to find patterns in raw data: if you track 50 things a month, coincidences turn up from maths alone. A closure, then an absence, and there it is, a pattern, even though the absence may have nothing to do with it. Search long enough and something will always seem to fit. The real test: does the pattern predict the next event? If not, it was chance.

Why is the first one more reliable than the second?

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.”

Because a named source can be held to account
Because the department head never makes mistakes
Because journalists always know everything

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Because a named source can be held to account

Named sources have a reputation to protect. If the department head lies in the paper and gets caught, it costs him. An anonymous message carries no consequence at all: it could be a hoax, or a lie told by someone angry, motivated or simply playing a prank. A real whistleblower protects their identity but still shows up, in person, to someone accountable.

Related reflex(es): 1. Who is speaking? · 2. What's the source?

What makes this number misleading?

A post says: “Bus fares went up 300% in 20 years! That's legalised robbery. Proof that the city is stealing from us.” (The real price: went from 50 cents to $2.)

A huge percentage on a very low starting price
20 years is too long a span to compare
The percentage doesn't really exist

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: A huge percentage on a very low starting price

300% on 50 cents, that makes $2. It is a real increase, but a percentage looks enormous precisely because the starting price was tiny, and between then and now general inflation reduced the value of money across the board. Before shouting “robbery,” weigh the real value and compare: did coffee prices rise too? Wages? Other transit systems? A number alone screams conspiracy. With context, it's often just normal.

What does this case teach us?

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 for years, with a maintenance budget that had never been spent.

The question was good, the answer wasn't
The authorities were right about everything
The group was right about everything

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: The question was good, the answer wasn't

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 initial suspicion was healthy; the conclusion drawn from it was a mistake, and the real reason turned out to be mundane, namely poor management. The real answer came from the audit, not from the theory. Critical thinking applies to YOUR doubts too: stay sceptical, keep asking, but change your mind when the facts call for it.

Tough

What sets the real case apart from the wrongly suspected conspiracy?

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.”

It's a matter of opinion
The real case is simply more serious
One rests on documents, the other on suspicion

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: One rests on documents, the other on suspicion

A real scandal uncovered through investigation isn't a conspiracy, it's a discovered case. The difference: documents, named sources who can be held accountable, verifiable journalistic work, witnesses who put their own reputation on the line. The forum theory had suspicion and nothing else. Unproven theories often anticipate a real problem, but without evidence they stay speculation. Don't confuse “I suspected something” with “I discovered something.”

Related reflex(es): 2. What's the source? · 1. Who is speaking?

What does this teach about doubt?

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.

Doubt the refusal, then go and check
The factory had a good reason to refuse
The citizens were completely right

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Doubt the refusal, then go and check

Doubt should apply to EVERYONE: authorities, factories and conspiracy-minded groups alike. “Why refuse?” is a good question, and being sceptical of a refusal is healthy. But “they refused, so it's hidden” and “they refused, so it's legitimate” are both extremes, and swallowing a denial unchecked is as naive as swallowing a conspiracy. The right reaction: push, use legal tools, verify.

How do you tell whether a coincidence is suspicious or ordinary?

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.

You check the public records
You trust your gut feeling
You believe whatever the post suggests

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: You check the public records

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, and public records show retirement dates: the simple, documented explanation was there all along. Critical thinking means going to look for the public data that explains the coincidence before shouting conspiracy. Often, it does explain it.

Related reflex(es): 3. What's the date? · 10. What if I'm the one who's wrong?

Why isn't there a conspiracy here, despite the price hike?

Cinema ticket prices went up $3 over three years. A group demands an investigation, claiming: “This is designed to keep the cinema out of reach for low-income families.” The cinema's management shows its public accounting: maintenance costs more than doubled, and wages rose with inflation. The cinema's margins actually shrank.

Because the increase is small
Because rising costs explain it
Because there are several other cinemas

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Because rising costs explain it

A suspicious-looking outcome (poorer families getting priced out) doesn't require a suspicious intent behind it. Every party here is acting on ordinary economic logic, not on a plan to exclude anyone: 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.

What does this teach us?

Residents of a neighbourhood, 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 come from incompetent waste management, not from any deliberate scheme. A disciplinary investigation follows.

The people who believed in the conspiracy were right
No conspiracy happened, so they should have been left alone
Suspicion prompted a check, and found ordinary negligence

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Suspicion prompted a check, and found ordinary negligence

The conspiracy theory turned out false, since there was no deliberate plan, but the underlying question was good: is there a real risk? Checking often leads to the truth, and the truth is usually not a secret plot but negligence, incompetence or poor management. A real but ordinary wrongdoing is still a genuine problem. The lesson: ask for verification even if your suspicion is off-base, and stay humble about what you find.

Why is this either/or framing misleading?

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.

Because standard ingredients are all bad
Because most things sit between the two
Because the cafeteria has no choice in anything

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Because most things sit between the two

“Either a wonderful conspiracy or a horrible one” erases the possibility of normal. Reality almost always allows for nuance between “perfect” and “malicious”: a standard cafeteria is neither a scam nor a premium service. Most organisations operate in that middle, working within a budget and doing their reasonable best. Accepting nuance is critical thinking applied to messy, ordinary reality. Reject false binaries.

What could have prevented the conspiracy theory from taking hold?

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 neighbourhood'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.

Asking every shopkeeper for their opinion
Leaving the road closed even longer
Telling people in advance

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Telling people in advance

Conspiracy theories are born when information is missing. Honest, advance communication (here's the work, here's how long it will take, here's the support on offer) leaves far less room for them. A decision-maker who hides their intentions feeds suspicion even without meaning to. The lesson: transparency and clarity reduce distrust, and if you're wrong anyway, you adjust. Trust is built through communication, not assumed good faith.

Related reflex(es): 1. Who is speaking? · 2. What's the source?

Why is seeing hidden signs in numbers or coincidences dangerous?

A person convinced of a “secret code” hidden in city council votes analyses 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.

Because we find patterns even in noise
Because secret codes don't exist
Because 8:33 isn't a special time at all

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Because we find patterns even in noise

Your brain is excellent at finding patterns, even in pure random noise. That instinct once helped avoid predators; in today's flood of information the same skill becomes a bug, and without critical filtering it leaves you blind to real information. The defence: look for patterns that PREDICT something observable, not just patterns in raw numbers. Otherwise you are manufacturing meaning out of noise.

Why is one a civic act and the other a conspiracy theory?

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.

Because one shows documents and a named source
Because both are talking about the same company
Because one claim is more serious than the other

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: Because one shows documents and a named source

A whistleblower shows the evidence: verifiable documents, a chain of accountability, a named source who can be held to account, a call for investigation. A conspiracy theory asserts things with no way to check them. Both can target the same organisation, 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.

Related reflex(es): 1. Who is speaking? · 2. What's the source?

What does this case teach us?

A group was convinced a bus line was being cut as “a conspiracy against low-income riders.” They organised, collected ridership data, and showed the cut created a real transit inequality. The city restored an alternative line. The budget papers, published later, show the cut came from a spending reduction.

A wrong theory can still point at a real problem
The authorities were right about everything
The group was right about everything

See the answer and the explanation

The right answer: A wrong theory can still point at a real problem

This case shows you can suspect a conspiracy, find out you were wrong about the why, and STILL be right that something needed to change. The difference: once you have real data, the 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 updating your view of the cause once the facts arrive, and being ready to say: I was wrong about the why, right that there was a problem.

`?`	Open this help
`Esc`	Close the panel or this help
`1-3`	Pick an answer during the quiz
`Enter`	Next case, once you've read the answer
`Tab`	Move from link to link: the whole site works by keyboard