Únete gratis

Distinguish facts, inferences, and opinions in source material

Autor: AILesson6 min de preparaciónProbado con:ChatGPTRevisado el: 2026-08-28

Respuesta rápida

Classify atomic statements by what the source observes, concludes, values, recommends, or leaves uncertain. Proporciona: Source material, Context and purpose, Classification rules. Resultado esperado: A traceable statement map with evidence basis, inference chain, and neutral rewrite.

1

Añade tu contexto

Tu texto permanece en este navegador. AILesson Prompts no lo envía a un modelo ni a un servidor.

2

Tu prompt

Los campos sin rellenar permanecen visibles como marcadores de posición, para que puedas copiar y editar el prompt

Classify statements in the source as facts, reported claims, inferences, predictions, opinions, value judgments, recommendations, or uncertainty using the supplied rules.

Source material:
[material]

Genre, author role, audience, and purpose:
[context]

Classification definitions:
[rules]

Split mixed sentences into atomic statements. A fact label means the source presents a checkable statement, not that you have independently verified it; distinguish source-reported fact from externally verified fact. Identify linguistic signals, evidence or premise, missing inference steps, modality, attribution, and what could verify each statement. Do not label a statement opinion merely because it is controversial, or fact merely because it contains a number. Return a statement table, inference chains, mixed/ambiguous cases, places where grammar hides the actor or certainty, and a neutral rewrite that preserves attribution and epistemic status.
Probar en Playground
Privado de forma predeterminadaLa preparación del prompt se realiza localmente en tu navegador. Evita introducir información confidencial en cualquier servicio de IA, a menos que tu organización lo permita.

De la entrada al resultado

Un ejemplo completo

Mira cómo un contexto concreto convierte esta receta en un resultado que puedes usar

Entrada real

Source material
[Director's memo, §2] Customer complaints rose from 42 in April to 57 in May. The increase clearly shows that the new routing system is confusing customers. Because the system is fundamentally flawed, we should restore the old process immediately. Operations says the May increase may partly reflect a campaign that generated 18% more orders, but its analysis is not complete. If the current pattern continues, complaints will exceed 70 in June.
Context and purpose
Internal decision memo written by the service director for executives. We need to prepare a neutral evidence brief before a rollback decision. No external verification has been performed.
Classification rules
Fact: source-presented checkable past/current statement. Reported claim: attributed checkable statement not independently verified. Inference: conclusion from stated/unstated premises. Prediction: future claim. Opinion/value judgment: evaluative standard. Recommendation: proposed action. Uncertainty: explicit limitation or modality. One statement may receive a primary and secondary label only when inseparable.

Ejemplo de salida

S1 Complaints were 42 in April and 57 in May | source-presented fact, not independently verified | signal: past counts | verify against complaint-system extracts, definitions, and monthly denominators. S2 The routing system confused customers | inference presented with high certainty (“clearly”) | premise: count increase; missing: complaint reasons, exposure, order volume, comparison, timing. S3 The system is fundamentally flawed | value judgment plus inference | “fundamentally” lacks a stated standard. S4 Restore the old process immediately | recommendation | depends on S2/S3 and unprovided rollback costs/risks. S5 Operations says orders rose 18% due to a campaign | reported claim; causal attribution remains unverified | verify order data and campaign design. S6 Operations analysis is incomplete | reported fact/uncertainty. S7 Complaints will exceed 70 in June | conditional prediction | depends on undefined “current pattern”; calculation route not shown.

Inference chain: 42→57 complaints → assumed routing confusion → judged fundamental flaw → immediate rollback. The observations do not supply the middle causal steps.

Neutral rewrite: “The memo reports 42 complaints in April and 57 in May; the counts have not been independently verified here. The director attributes the increase to customer confusion caused by the new routing system and recommends immediate rollback, but the memo does not provide complaint-reason or exposure analysis. Operations reports 18% more May orders associated with a campaign and says its analysis is incomplete. A June count above 70 is a conditional forecast whose method is not stated.”

Por qué funciona

  1. 1

    Atomic classification reveals when one sentence combines observation, explanation, and recommendation.

  2. 2

    Separating source-reported from independently verified facts prevents analysis from laundering claims.

Comprueba el resultado

  • Were mixed sentences split before classification?

  • Does each label explain its evidence, linguistic signal, attribution, and verification route?

  • Are numbers, controversy, confidence, and truth kept conceptually separate?

Úsalo con confianza

Preguntas frecuentes

Respuestas prácticas sobre cuándo usar esta receta, qué debes proporcionar y en qué casos la revisión humana sigue siendo importante

What should I prepare before using “Distinguish facts, inferences, and opinions in source material”?

For “Distinguish facts, inferences, and opinions in source material,” prepare Source material, Context and purpose, and Classification rules. Replace placeholders only with information you can verify. If a detail is unknown, preserve that uncertainty explicitly instead of asking the model to infer it.

When is the “Distinguish facts, inferences, and opinions in source material” result not ready to use?

The result is not ready if it does not yet deliver the stated outcome—A traceable statement map with evidence basis, inference chain, and neutral rewrite—from the supplied evidence, or if it relies on unresolved assumptions, missing approvals, or invented details. Use the checks as release gates: revise the source inputs or assign a named, authorized reviewer instead of polishing an unsupported output.

Which AI tools have recorded tests for “Distinguish facts, inferences, and opinions in source material”?

The published test record for “Distinguish facts, inferences, and opinions in source material” lists ChatGPT as of 2026-08-28. This confirms recorded runs, not guaranteed compatibility or identical results in later product versions. For another tool or version, keep every constraint visible and repeat the result checks before use.

Más formas de explorar

Dónde encaja esta receta

Indicaciones de textoAnálisis de documentosInvestigación y análisisAprendizaje y estudioPara quienes aprenden y educan

Mantén el trabajo en marcha

AILesson · Cursos recomendados

Tu próximo paso: pon la IA a trabajar

Pasa de entender la IA a poner manos a la obra. Practica cómo dar instrucciones, revisar y mejorar resultados con lecciones interactivas para el trabajo y la vida cotidiana.

Explora todos los cursos
Portada de IA para principiantes

15 lecciones interactivas

IA para principiantes

Inicia una conversación útil con la IA, mejora la respuesta, comprueba lo importante y reconoce cuándo te corresponde dar el siguiente paso.

Explora este curso
Portada de Fundamentos de ChatGPT

10 lecciones interactivas

Fundamentos de ChatGPT

Aprende a usar ChatGPT mediante tres flujos de trabajo prácticos: completa una primera conversación, trabaja con un archivo y usa Projects para llevar un plan comprobado a una nueva conversación.

Explora este curso
Portada de Cómo funciona la IA generativa

7 lecciones interactivas

Cómo funciona la IA generativa

Comprende cómo los chats de IA habituales aprenden patrones del lenguaje, usan los mensajes actuales, construyen respuestas e incorporan fuentes y herramientas.

Explora este curso