Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 63 references

The Behavioural Reflection Test: A time-efficient measure of reflective reasoning in morally and epistemically charged decisions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A brief open-ended test of reflective reasoning predicts evidence-sensitive decisions and risk-attentive language better than a familiarity-adjusted classic Cognitive Reflection Test.

desk verdict Useful brief behavioural assay plus fresher CRT items; the bCRT–decision claim is real but rests partly on unvalidated LLM coding. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07961 v1 pith:HI7RGJ4B submitted 2026-07-08 cs.HC stat.OT

Sion Weatherhead , Flora Salim , Aaron Belbasis , Ben R. Newell This is my paper
classification cs.HCstat.OT
keywords cognitivereflectionBehaviouralTestNeedforCognitionmoraljudgementepistemicevaluationlanguageanddecision-makingLIWC
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Classic Cognitive Reflection Test items have become so widely known that scores often reflect prior exposure rather than a present tendency to override intuition. This paper introduces the Behavioural Reflection Test: two short open-ended scenarios (a restaurant booking under conflicting reviews, and a medication decision under influencer claims) in which people justify what they would do. Alongside it, the authors validate a four-item bespoke CRT built from fresher items. In 473 online adults, higher scores on the new CRT predicted more evidence-weighted, fairness- and loyalty-aware choices, high-quality information-search plans, and language that was more negative-emotion and risk focused yet leaner on auxiliaries and contrast scaffolding. Familiarity-adjusted legacy CRT scores did not recover the same pattern. The open-ended task stayed brief (median 11.8 minutes), offering a practical behavioural assay of how reflection shows up in morally and epistemically charged everyday decisions.

What carries the argument

The Behavioural Reflection Test (BRT): two open-ended, morally and epistemically charged scenarios whose free-text justifications are scored both with LIWC linguistic categories and with a fixed-rubric large-language-model classifier that codes decisions, epistemic anchors, fairness/loyalty, and research quality, anchored by a four-item low-exposure bespoke CRT.

What would settle it

Have independent human coders apply the same fixed decision and reasoning rubric to the open-ended BRT responses; if the human-coded primary outcomes no longer show the reported FDR-robust associations with bCRT (while CRT2 remains weak), the central predictive claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Higher scores on a low-exposure four-item bespoke Cognitive Reflection Test predict more source-sensitive, norm-sensitive, and epistemically structured decisions in two open-ended scenarios, together with more emotionally engaged, risk-attentive, and economical language; the same associations are not recovered by a familiarity-adjusted classic CRT2, while the new items show convergent validity and add measurement information above mean ability.

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on treating automated rubric coding of open-ended answers as accurate enough without independent human annotations of those codes.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the Behavioural Reflection Test (BRT), a brief open-ended measure of reflective reasoning in two morally and epistemically charged scenarios, and a four-item bespoke CRT (bCRT) as a low-exposure psychometric anchor. In a Prolific sample of N=473, higher bCRT scores predicted four of five pre-specified primary decision/reasoning outcomes (ORs 1.19–1.58 per item; FDR-corrected) and several LIWC markers (negative emotion, risk, reduced auxiliary verbs, etc.), while familiarity-adjusted CRT2 largely did not. The bCRT showed modest convergent validity with CRT2 and NFC, lower prior-exposure rates than CRT2, and complementary IRT information above mean ability. Median BRT completion was 11.8 minutes. The central claim is that the BRT recovers theoretically relevant behavioural and linguistic signatures of reflection that saturated legacy CRT items no longer recover.

Significance. If the results hold under stronger measurement validation, the paper offers a practical dual contribution: a refreshed low-exposure CRT-style scale and a compact, scenario-based behavioural assay that links reflection to source-sensitive decisions and linguistic style without massive in-the-wild data collection. That combination is timely given CRT item saturation and dense online information environments. Strengths include an independent Prolific validation sample after pilot item selection, pre-specified primary outcomes with Benjamini–Hochberg correction, open data and analysis code, explicit familiarity measurement, and clean IRT information curves. The LIWC analyses are independent of the LLM coding layer and already provide a partial linguistic signature. The work is therefore of genuine interest to cognitive science and HCI audiences studying reflection, misinformation hygiene, and measurement of thinking style.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods / Table 3 / SI LLM coding] Methods (Decisional coding) and SI (LLM coding scheme): Four of the five primary decision outcomes in Table 3 are LLM-coded flags or deterministic composites from GPT-5-nano under a fixed rubric (fair evidence-based keep, moral fairness/loyalty, hostile rebuke, high-quality research plan). The manuscript reports no independent human annotations, no inter-rater agreement, and no human–model concordance; Limitations defer triangulation to future work. Because the abstract’s strongest claim is that higher bCRT predicts evidence-sensitive, ethically driven decisions that familiarity-adjusted CRT2 does not recover (Figure 3a), this unvalidated coding layer is load-bearing. Systematic mislabeling correlated with response length or style (both track bCRT; Table 5 word count β=13.54) could inflate the reported ORs. A human-coded subset with agreement statistics, or at minimum a sensitivity analy
  2. [Results / Discussion / Table 2 / Figure 3] Results (Descriptive performance) and Discussion (bCRT–CRT2 dissociation): CRT2 internal consistency is extremely low (α=.241) while bCRT is modest (α=.539). The paper attributes CRT2’s weaker behavioural prediction primarily to item saturation (Table 1 exposure rates; Figure 3). Saturation is plausible and well documented, but low reliability is an alternative or complementary explanation for attenuated CRT2 associations that is not fully separated from the familiarity account. A clearer decomposition—e.g., reliability-corrected correlations, or models that jointly enter familiarity and item-level difficulty/discrimination—would strengthen the claim that the dissociation is specifically about exposure rather than measurement noise. This matters because the paper’s practical recommendation to prefer newer items over legacy CRT2 rests on that interpretation.
  3. [Table 3 / Abstract / Discussion] Table 3, BRT Q2 reflective acceptance: The fifth primary outcome is directionally consistent (OR=1.19) but does not survive FDR (pFDR=.077), and SI notes that reflective delay is also unpredicted by bCRT. The Discussion’s under-determination account is reasonable, but the abstract still leads with “evidence-sensitive, ethically driven decisions” as a general pattern across scenarios. The medication scenario’s weaker and more heterogeneous signal should be reflected more carefully in the abstract and strongest claims, or the primary outcome definition should be revised (e.g., a composite that credits either reflective accept or high-quality reflective delay) with pre-registration or clear exploratory status.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3] Figure 3 caption correctly notes that panels compare independent per-instrument models rather than a formal test of the bCRT–CRT2 difference. A direct contrast (e.g., nested models or bootstrap difference in coefficients) would make the dissociation claim more precise.
  2. [Table 4 / Discussion] Present-focus is reported as an exploratory replication from pilot; its mixed dispositional correlates are acknowledged, but the main-text framing still risks over-interpreting a post-hoc time-focus signal. Keep it clearly exploratory in tables and prose.
  3. [BRT linguistic markers / Discussion] LIWC moral language was a planned Mosleh-inspired category and showed no association, while rubric-coded fairness/loyalty did. This contrast is theoretically useful; consider elevating it slightly in the abstract or highlights so readers do not expect dictionary moral wording to track the BRT.
  4. [Results / SI Figure 8] Completion-time distribution is right-skewed (mean 13.45 vs median 11.83). A brief note on whether longer responders drive linguistic quantity effects (word count) would help rule out a pure verbosity confound for the LIWC pattern.
  5. [Procedure] Minor clarity: state explicitly in the main text that decoy CRT items were included in the reasoning block but not scored, so readers do not confuse the 12-item block with the four-item bCRT total.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: independent predictor scoring, independently coded outcomes, and empirical associations on a held-out sample.

full rationale

This is a standard psychometric validation study, not a derivation that reduces outputs to inputs by construction. The bCRT is scored from closed-form lure-versus-correct items; BRT decision outcomes are produced by a fixed LLM rubric over free-text (decision, epistemic anchor, fairness/loyalty flags, research specificity) and by LIWC category proportions—neither coding path references bCRT scores. Item selection used classical and 2PL statistics on a SONA pilot; primary associations (logistic ORs, OLS LIWC slopes, convergent r with CRT2/NFC) are estimated on an independent Prolific sample. Designing scenarios around constructs previously linked to CRT (Mosleh et al., moral/epistemic hygiene) is hypothesis-driven measure construction, not self-definitional circularity: the paper tests whether a low-exposure reflection score predicts those behaviours, and reports partial nulls (e.g., reflective Medex acceptance, LIWC moral). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and load-bearing claims rest on empirical regressions rather than self-citation chains. Measurement risk (unvalidated LLM coding) is a validity concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

Empirical psychometrics paper. No free physical constants or invented particles. Load-bearing modeling choices are the LLM coding rubric, the five primary composite outcomes, FDR correction family, and the assumption that low item exposure plus lure structure indexes reflection rather than residual numeracy or verbal ability.

free parameters (2)
  • Final four bCRT items selected from pilot pool
    Item selection used classical statistics and 2PL IRT on the SONA pilot; choice of which four items form the scale is a data-driven free choice that defines the predictor.
  • Primary BRT composite outcome definitions
    Five binary composites (e.g., fair evidence-based keep = KEEP + hygiene/anchor + fairness/loyalty) are pre-specified but constructed by the authors; alternative composites change which associations survive.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Cognitive reflection is a meaningful individual-difference construct partially separable from general ability and captured by lure-versus-correct items
    Inherited from Frederick (2005) and subsequent CRT literature; used to justify both bCRT construction and interpretation of BRT associations.
  • domain assumption LIWC category proportions (negative emotion, risk, discrepancy, etc.) are valid behavioural traces of reflective style
    Motivated by Mosleh et al. (2021) and Tausczik & Pennebaker; used for linguistic hypotheses.
  • ad hoc to paper GPT-5-nano under a fixed rubric produces sufficiently accurate labels for decision, anchor, and reasoning flags
    Stated in Methods; no human inter-rater validation in this submission; authors flag it as a limitation.
  • domain assumption Institutional/expert sources are higher quality than crowd reviews or influencer claims within the scenario logic
    Hard-coded into the coding rubric and into the definition of evidence-sensitive outcomes.
invented entities (2)
  • Behavioural Reflection Test (BRT)
    purpose: Brief open-ended behavioural assay of reflective reasoning in two morally/epistemically charged scenarios
    New instrument introduced and validated in this paper; independent evidence is the reported associations themselves, not external prior validation.
  • bespoke CRT (bCRT) four-item scale
    purpose: Low-exposure CRT-style anchor with complementary IRT information
    New item set assembled and selected here; convergent validity with CRT2/NFC is internal to the study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Behavioural Reflection Test: A time-efficient measure of reflective reasoning in morally and epistemically charged decisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HI7RGJ4B

@misc{pith2026260707961,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Behavioural Reflection Test: A time-efficient measure of reflective reasoning in morally and epistemically charged decisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HI7RGJ4B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07961}
}
read the original abstract

How readily people override intuitive conclusions through reflection shapes how they navigate dense information environments with reliable and misleading sources; yet the effectiveness of a prominent measure, the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), is eroded by widespread exposure to classic items and leaves open how such tendencies manifest more generally in decision style and linguistic expression. The Behavioural Reflection Test (BRT) addresses these issues with a brief open-ended measure of reasoning in morally and epistemically charged scenarios, alongside a four-item bespoke CRT (bCRT) as a low-exposure anchor. Among 473 online adults, higher bCRT predicted more evidence-sensitive, ethically driven decisions and reliance on high-quality sources, marked by more emotionally engaged, risk-attentive, economical language; associations the familiarity-adjusted CRT did not recover. The bCRT showed convergent validity, added item information above mean ability. Though open-ended, the BRT remained a time-efficient (median 11.8 minutes) behavioural assay of reflection with scope to extend across domains.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kahneman, D.Thinking, Fast and SlowPenguin Psychology (Penguin Books, London, 2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    K., Yaacov

    Schul, G. K., Yaacov. Two Is Not Always Better Than One - Gideon Keren, Yaacov Schul, 2009.Perspectives on Psychological Science(2009)

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Newell, B. R. & Shanks, D. R.Open Minded: Searching for Truth about the Unconscious Mind(MIT Press, 2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Evans, J. S. B. T. & Stanovich, K. E. Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate.Perspectives on Psychological Science8, 223–241 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    & Shu, K

    Chen, C. & Shu, K. Combating misinformation in the age of LLMs: Opportunities and challenges.AI Magazine45, 354–368 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    W., Jensen, A

    Meyrowitsch, D. W., Jensen, A. K., Sørensen, J. B. & Varga, T. V. AI chat- bots and (mis)information in public health: Impact on vulnerable communities. Frontiers in Public Health11, 1226776 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making.Journal of Economic Perspectives19, 25–42 (2005)

    Frederick, S. Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making.Journal of Economic Perspectives19, 25–42 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Cokely, E. T. & Kelley, C. M. Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: A protocol analysis and process model evaluation.Judgment and Decision Making4, 20–33 (2009)

    work page 2009

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    & Schmitz, P

    Oechssler, J., Roider, A. & Schmitz, P. W. Cognitive abilities and behavioral biases.Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization72, 147–152 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    Greene, J. D. Dual-process morality and the personal/impersonal distinction: A reply to McGuire, Langdon, Coltheart, and Mackenzie.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology45, 581–584 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    E., West, R

    Toplak, M. E., West, R. F. & Stanovich, K. E. The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks.Memory & Cognition 39, 1275–1289 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    & Peters, E

    Sinayev, A. & Peters, E. Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making. Frontiers in Psychology6, 532 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    & Gerrans, P

    Campitelli, G. & Gerrans, P. Does the cognitive reflection test measure cognitive reflection? A mathematical modeling approach.Memory & Cognition42, 434–447 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Thomson, K. S. & Oppenheimer, D. M. Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test.Judgment and Decision Making11, 99–113 (2016). 21

    2016

  7. [15]

    & Marshall, A

    Sirota, M., Dewberry, C., Juanchich, M., Valuˇ s, L. & Marshall, A. C. Measuring cognitive reflection without maths: Development and validation of the verbal cognitive reflection test.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making34, 322–343 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    & Narendran, S

    Juanchich, M., Dewberry, C., Sirota, M. & Narendran, S. Cognitive Reflection Predicts Real-Life Decision Outcomes, but Not Over and Above Personality and Decision-Making Styles.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making29, 52–59 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    & H¨ ugelsch¨ afer, S

    Al´ os-Ferrer, C., Garagnani, M. & H¨ ugelsch¨ afer, S. Cognitive Reflection, Decision Biases, and Response Times.Frontiers in Psychology7(2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Mosleh, M., Pennycook, G., Arechar, A. A. & Rand, D. G. Cognitive reflec- tion correlates with behavior on Twitter - Nature Communications.Nature Communications12, 921 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    D.et al.Reflective liberals and intuitive conservatives: A look at the Cognitive Reflection Test and ideology.Judgment and Decision Making10, 314–331 (2015)

    Deppe, K. D.et al.Reflective liberals and intuitive conservatives: A look at the Cognitive Reflection Test and ideology.Judgment and Decision Making10, 314–331 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    & Rand, D

    Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. Cognitive Reflection and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin45, 224–239 (2019)

    2016

  13. [21]

    & Huber, S

    Maran, T., Ravet-Brown, T., Angerer, M., Furtner, M. & Huber, S. E. Intelli- gence predicts choice in decision-making strategies.Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics84, 101483 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    What IQ Tests Test.Theory & Psychology12, 283–314 (2002)

    Richardson, K. What IQ Tests Test.Theory & Psychology12, 283–314 (2002)

    2002

  15. [23]

    M., Kramer, A.-W., van den Bos, W

    Langener, A. M., Kramer, A.-W., van den Bos, W. & Huizenga, H. M. A shortened version of Raven’s standard progressive matrices for children and adolescents. British Journal of Developmental Psychology40, 35–45 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    J., Glass, L

    Ryan, J. J., Glass, L. A. & Brown, C. N. Administration time estimates for Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV subtests, composites, and short forms. Journal of Clinical Psychology63, 309–318 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    T., Petty, R

    Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E. & Feng Kao, C. The Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition.Journal of Personality Assessment48, 306–307 (1984)

    1984

  18. [26]

    A., Barr, N., Koehler, D

    Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J. & Fugelsang, J. A. The role of analytic thinking in moral judgements and values.Thinking & Reasoning 20, 188–214 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    A., Koehler, D

    Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Koehler, D. J. & Fugelsang, J. A. Is the cognitive reflection test a measure of both reflection and intuition?Behavior Research Methods48, 341–348 (2016). 22

    2016

  20. [28]

    W., Chung, C

    Pennebaker, J. W., Chung, C. K., Frazee, J., Lavergne, G. M. & Beaver, D. I. When Small Words Foretell Academic Success: The Case of College Admissions Essays.PLOS ONE9, e115844 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    B., Brownstein, J

    Thorpe Huerta, D., Hawkins, J. B., Brownstein, J. S. & Hswen, Y. Explor- ing discussions of health and risk and public sentiment in Massachusetts during COVID-19 pandemic mandate implementation: A Twitter analysis.SSM - Population Health15, 100851 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Park, G.et al.Living in the Past, Present, and Future: Measuring Temporal Orientation With Language.Journal of Personality85, 270–280 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    F., Vohs, K

    Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., Nathan DeWall, C. & Zhang, L. How Emotion Shapes Behavior: Feedback, Anticipation, and Reflection, Rather Than Direct Causation.Personality and Social Psychology Review(2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    Tausczik, Y. R. & Pennebaker, J. W. The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods.Journal of Language and Social Psychology29, 24–54 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    W., Slatcher, R

    Pennebaker, J. W., Slatcher, R. B. & Chung, C. K. Linguistic Markers of Psycho- logical State through Media Interviews: John Kerry and John Edwards in 2004, Al Gore in 2000.Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy5, 197–204 (2005)

    2004

  26. [34]

    J., Crockett, M

    Brady, W. J., Crockett, M. J. & Van Bavel, J. J. The MAD Model of Moral Con- tagion: The Role of Motivation, Attention, and Design in the Spread of Moralized Content Online.Perspectives on Psychological Science15, 978–1010 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    & Emlen Metz, S

    Baron, J., Scott, S., Fincher, K. & Emlen Metz, S. Why does the Cognitive Reflec- tion Test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things)? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition4, 265–284 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Greene, J. D. Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains.Trends in Cognitive Sciences11, 322–323 (2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    more nega- tive

    Hong, S.-s., Bae, J., Son, L. K. & Kim, K. Negative emotion can be “more nega- tive” for those with high metacognitive abilities when problem-solving.Frontiers in Psychology14(2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    L., Ashwini Ashokkumar, Seraj, S

    Boyd, R. L., Ashwini Ashokkumar, Seraj, S. & Pennebaker, J. W. The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC-22 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    A., Kyle, K

    Crossley, S. A., Kyle, K. & McNamara, D. S. Sentiment Analysis and Social Cognition Engine (SEANCE): An automatic tool for sentiment, social cognition, and social-order analysis.Behavior Research Methods49, 803–821 (2017). 23

    2017

  32. [40]

    & Bernstein, M

    Fast, E., Chen, B. & Bernstein, M. S. Empath: Understanding Topic Signals in Large-Scale Text (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    did not complete enough of the survey for inclusion

    Rammstedt, B. & John, O. P. Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German.Journal of Research in Personality41, 203–212 (2007). Supplementary Information Supplementary Methods: Data Cleaning and Participant...

    2007

  34. [42]

    Jack is married, while George is not

    Jack is looking at Anne, but Anne is looking at George. Jack is married, while George is not. Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?

  35. [43]

    The bottom rung touches the water

    A rope ladder hangs over the side of a ship. The bottom rung touches the water. The distance between rungs is 20 cm and the tide rises at 15 cm per hour. How long until three rungs are covered?

  36. [44]

    Each day it climbs 3 feet but slides down 2 feet each night

    A snail climbs up a 10-foot wall. Each day it climbs 3 feet but slides down 2 feet each night. How many days will it take to reach the top?

  37. [45]

    He sells it for$1000

    A man buys a cow for$800. He sells it for$1000. Then he buys the cow back for $1100 and sells it again for$1300. How much money did he make in total? Additional candidate items evaluated during development

  38. [46]

    If it takes 5 minutes to boil one egg, how long would it take to boil 4 eggs?

  39. [47]

    How many months have 28 days?

  40. [48]

    How many 2-cent stamps are in a dozen?

  41. [49]

    You only have one match

    You are in a dark room with a candle, a wood stove, and a gas lamp. You only have one match. What do you light first?

  42. [50]

    What do you get when you divide 10 by half and add 10?

  43. [51]

    Where do they bury the survivors?

    A plane crashes on the border of the United States and Canada. Where do they bury the survivors?

  44. [52]

    Brothers and sisters I have none, but that man’s father is my father’s son

    A man is looking at a portrait. Someone asks him whose portrait he is looking at. He replies, “Brothers and sisters I have none, but that man’s father is my father’s son.” Whose portrait is the man looking at?

  45. [53]

    How long will the pills last? Pool of decoy questions

    A doctor gives you three pills and tells you to take one every half hour. How long will the pills last? Pool of decoy questions

  46. [54]

    If a train leaves Melbourne at 3pm and travels at 100 km/h, how long does it take to reach Sydney 800 km away?

  47. [55]

    At the first delivery, 50 boxes were shipped out

    A warehouse had 400 boxes of toys. At the first delivery, 50 boxes were shipped out. At the second delivery, another 150 boxes were shipped out. How many boxes are left?

  48. [56]

    Each truck can carry 300 boxes

    A fleet of trucks is carrying 1200 boxes. Each truck can carry 300 boxes. How many trucks are needed to carry all the boxes? 30

  49. [57]

    Each person brings one item: a tent, a bag of marshmallows, and a flashlight

    John, Lisa, and Mark go on a camping trip. Each person brings one item: a tent, a bag of marshmallows, and a flashlight. John brought the flashlight, and Lisa did not bring any food. What did Mark bring?

  50. [58]

    How many cups of flour are needed to make 24 cookies?

    A recipe calls for 2 cups of flour to make 12 cookies. How many cups of flour are needed to make 24 cookies?

  51. [59]

    How many cars will it produce in 4 days?

    A factory produces 150 cars per day. How many cars will it produce in 4 days?

  52. [60]

    If a clock shows 3:45pm, how many minutes are left until 5:00pm?

  53. [61]

    If you have 34 books, how many empty spaces are left on the bookshelf?

    A bookshelf has 5 shelves, and each shelf can hold 8 books. If you have 34 books, how many empty spaces are left on the bookshelf?

  54. [62]

    What percentage of the class is boys?

    In a class of 30 students, 18 are girls. What percentage of the class is boys?

  55. [63]

    If you have a 5-litre jug and a 3-litre jug, and you fill the 5-litre jug completely, how many times can you fill the 3-litre jug from it? Pilot and Prolific procedures The SONA pilot was used for item selection, preliminary psychometric calibration of the candidate bCRT pool,...

Pith tools

Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.