Distinguish facts, inferences, and opinions in source material

작성자: AILesson6 분 소요테스트::ChatGPT검토일: 2026-08-28

빠른 답변

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

맥락 추가

텍스트는 이 브라우저에 유지됩니다. AILesson Prompts는 이를 모델이나 서버로 보내지 않습니다.

Source materialContext and purposeClassification rules

프롬프트

채워지지 않은 필드는 플레이스홀더로 표시되므로 프롬프트를 복사하고 편집할 수 있습니다

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.

Playground에서 사용해 보기

기본적으로 비공개프롬프트 구성은 브라우저에서 로컬로 이루어집니다. 조직에서 허용하지 않는 한 기밀 정보를 AI 서비스에 입력하지 마세요.

입력에서 결과까지

적용 예시

구체적인 맥락이 이 레시피를 바로 사용할 수 있는 결과로 바꾸는 방법을 확인하세요

실제 입력

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.

예시 출력

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.”

효과가 있는 이유

1
Atomic classification reveals when one sentence combines observation, explanation, and recommendation.
2
Separating source-reported from independently verified facts prevents analysis from laundering claims.

결과 확인

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?

안심하고 사용하세요

자주 묻는 질문

이 레시피를 언제 사용해야 하는지, 무엇을 제공해야 하는지, 그리고 어떤 부분에서 사람의 검토가 여전히 중요한지에 대한 실용적인 답변

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.

더 많은 탐색 방법