Thirty good questions

Question 1. What decision, task or question brought me to this paper?

Why it works. A reason sets your pace and tells you which parts to skip.

Question 2. What would I need to be able to say afterwards for this time to have been well spent?

Why it works. Defining enough in advance lets you stop without guilt.

Question 3. Who wrote this, for whom, and what do they want readers to do afterwards?

Why it works. White papers in particular often explain and advocate in the same breath.

Question 4. What do I already believe about this topic, and what would change my mind?

Why it works. You read your own beliefs more kindly than anyone else’s. Naming them first corrects for it.

Question 5. What is the one sentence the authors most want me to remember?

Why it works. If you cannot find it, the paper may not have one, which is itself a finding.

Question 6. Which claims are central, and which are supporting detail?

Why it works. Papers hold dozens of claims, but usually only two or three carry weight.

Question 7. Is each claim a description, a prediction, a recommendation or a definition?

Why it works. Each type needs a different kind of support. Mixing them up is a common source of overreach.

Question 8. How strongly is each claim worded, and does the evidence earn that verb?

Why it works. Check the gap between “suggests”, “shows” and “proves” across the abstract, results and conclusion.

Question 9. What would the authors have to be wrong about for the main claim to fall?

Why it works. This finds the load-bearing assumption fast.

Question 10. Which words are carrying special meaning here, and where are they defined?

Why it works. Ordinary-looking words used in a special sense are the ones that mislead.

Question 11. Does any term change meaning between sections?

Why it works. Drift in meaning can make a weak argument look strong.

Question 12. What does this paper call something that I know by another name?

Why it works. Fields rename the same idea constantly. Mapping the names lets you borrow what you already know.

Question 13. Could I explain the key term to a friend without using it?

Why it works. If not, you have memorised a word, not an idea.

Question 14. What evidence is offered for each central claim: data, argument, authority, example, or nothing?

Why it works. Naming the kind of support makes missing support easy to see.

Question 15. Where did the evidence come from, and who chose it?

Why it works. Data selected to fit the story is not the same as data that tests it.

Question 16. Do the figures and tables say what the text says they say?

Why it works. Captions and prose often lean harder on a picture than the picture can bear.

Question 17. What is being compared with what, and is that a fair comparison?

Why it works. A strong result against a weak baseline is a weak result.

Question 18. What evidence would I expect to see that is not here?

Why it works. Absences are hard to notice. Writing down what you expected makes them visible.

Question 19. What does the argument assume without saying so?

Why it works. Unstated assumptions are the cheapest way to make a result look general.

Question 20. Which assumptions are reasonable in the authors’ setting but shaky in mine?

Why it works. This is the question that separates “interesting” from “useful to me”.

Question 21. Could I repeat what they did from the description alone, and where does it turn vague?

Why it works. Vague methods cannot be checked, so they cannot really be trusted.

Question 22. What did they choose to measure, and what did that choice leave out?

Why it works. Every measure is a decision about what counts.

Question 23. What do the authors admit they cannot show?

Why it works. The limitations section is the authors’ own map of where the trail ends.

Question 24. What is the strongest competing explanation or approach, and is it treated fairly?

Why it works. If the best rival gets one line, the comparison was probably not a contest.

Question 25. Under what conditions would this stop working?

Why it works. Boundaries make a claim usable.

Question 26. What incentives might shape what was reported, or how?

Why it works. Not an accusation, just a habit: everyone writes from somewhere.

Question 27. What is the smallest claim from this paper that I can safely use today?

Why it works. Small, solid claims are more useful than large, shaky ones.

Question 28. What would I need to check elsewhere before relying on it?

Why it works. This turns a vague unease into a to-do list.

Question 29. Which three sentences would I quote to a colleague, and do they stand without context?

Why it works. Quotable sentences that need their paragraph to make sense are claims that travel badly.

Question 30. What question do I now have that the paper did not answer?

Why it works. A good paper leaves you with better questions than you arrived with.