Is There Any "There" There? 🧐: Part 2

Critical thinking is the foundation for confident, resilient problem-solvers.

⛏️ Deeper dive

To scrutinize claims more closely, we need relevant and reliable content knowledge.

LLMs are a go-to resource. ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity, etc. can help us access the most reputable research evidence to evaluate claims.

But LLMs can be untrustworthy, right? How can we improve chances we will get accurate results from an AI query? This is where C.O.R.E. comes in.

Let’s try it with the following claims made in this same YouTube example.

Microwaving food lowers nutrients compared to other types of cooking;
Can reduce nutrients from 5 to 40% or more depending on cooking time;
Microwaving for 60 seconds can inactivate key phytonutrients from 96 to 100%;
Steaming only reduces nutrients by 11%

🔑 The C.O.R.E. Approach

When prompting an LLM like ChatGPT, C.O.R.E. helps you get better answers:

📝 C – Context

Identify key aspects of purpose and audience.
Example: “I need to provide a clear example of how to analyze a YouTube video with microwaving claims. My audience is a savvy group of critical readers who want a clear takeaway.”

🎯 O – Outcomes

Tell the AI what you want back.
Example: “I want a cogent summary of credible scientific evidence about effects of microwaving that includes a comparison with boiling and steaming.”

👩‍🔬 R – Roles

Assign roles to the AI for expertise.
Example: “Act as a nutrition scientist and an electrical engineer to identify, evaluate, and synthesize evidence from highly credible sources about food science and microwave technology.”

💡 E – Example

Provide particular details to make query more concrete.
Example: “Put summary in concise, catchy style of an award-winning newsletter 😄”

🧑‍🏫 C.O.R.E. in Action

Claim 1: “Microwaving food lowers nutrients compared to other methods.”

• Verdict: ❌ Misleading — All cooking reduces nutrients; microwaving often preserves more than boiling.

Claim 2: “Microwaving can reduce nutrients by 5–40%.”

• Verdict: ⚠️ Partially true — That range applies to many cooking methods, not uniquely microwaving.

Claim 3: “Microwaving for 60 seconds can inactivate key phytonutrients from 96 to 100%;”

• Verdict: ❌ False — No credible evidence; often misuses one old broccoli study.

Claim 4: “Steaming only reduces nutrients by 11%.”

• Verdict: ⚠️ Oversimplified — Steaming is gentle, but losses vary (10–25%+ depending on nutrient).

👉 Takeaway: With C.O.R.E. (Context + Outcomes + Roles + Example), you can quickly move beyond surface-level claims to evidence-based clarity.

💬 Teaching Tip: C.O.R.E. Prompt Template

Prompt:
"A [social media post / video] claims that [insert claim here].
Act as a [role 1: e.g., nutrition scientist] and a [role 2: e.g., electrical engineer].
Provide evidence from highly credible sources (NIH, Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Harvard Health).
Summarize whether the claim is accurate, misleading, or false, and explain why.
Highlight what kind of evidence is being used (anecdote, expert opinion, official stats, experimental study, etc.)."

👉 Pro tip: Swap in different roles depending on the topic (e.g., economist, climate scientist, policy analyst).

🌊 Ready to dive in? 

Challenge: Ask "Is there any “there” there?" during your next social media scrolling session. Try a Deeper Dive and the evidence🚦for a post that catches your attention. What do you notice?

🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Connect & Share! 

Thanks for joining me on this journey!

If you have questions, stories, or suggestions for future topics, just hit reply—I’d love to hear from you.

And if you are finding any value with these posts, please share this newsletter with friends, family, fellow educators, parents, or anyone committed to thinking well in a noisy world.

And if this ever stops being your thing, unsubscribe anytime—no hard feelings. 

To ThinkingWell together!

James