HSC Pro key terms

The ability to combine information from several sources, such as text, tables and graphs, and draw a single defensible conclusion. It requires weighing evidence rather than applying one rule in isolation.

Judging how much trust to place in each piece of information based on its source, recency, sample size and relevance. Stronger evidence should dominate weaker or anecdotal material in a decision.

The tendency to seek, notice and favour information that supports an existing belief while ignoring contrary evidence. It distorts reasoning and is a common cause of poor professional decisions.

Over-relying on the first number or fact encountered when making an estimate or judgement. Later adjustments tend to be too small, so the initial anchor disproportionately shapes the final answer.

The underlying frequency of an event in a population before specific case details are considered. Ignoring it leads to overestimating rare events when vivid individual information is available.

A test result that indicates a condition is present when it is actually absent. Its likelihood depends on test specificity and on how common the condition is in the tested group.

Sensitivity is the share of true cases a test correctly detects; specificity is the share of non-cases it correctly clears. Together they describe a test's accuracy independent of how common a condition is.

The probability that a person with a positive test result genuinely has the condition. It rises as the condition becomes more common and falls when testing broad, low-risk populations.

Reading tables, charts and datasets accurately to extract meaning, trends and comparisons. It includes checking units, axes and labels before drawing any conclusion from the numbers shown.

Distinguishing a proportional change from a raw count difference. A doubling from two to four cases is a large rate change but a tiny absolute change, and confusing the two misleads readers.

The arithmetic difference between two percentages, expressed in points rather than as a relative change. A move from 10% to 15% is five percentage points but a fifty percent increase.

The bottom number of a ratio or fraction, showing the total against which a count is compared. Choosing the wrong denominator is a frequent source of misleading statistics.

A distortion that occurs when the group studied is not representative of the population the conclusion is meant to describe. Results then reflect the selection method rather than the real effect.

Correlation means two variables move together; causation means one actually produces the other. A statistical association alone never proves a causal link without further evidence.

An unmeasured factor that influences both the supposed cause and the observed effect, creating a spurious association. Controlling for it is essential before claiming a causal relationship.

The comparison group in a study that does not receive the treatment under test. It isolates the effect of the intervention from natural change, placebo effects and outside influences.

A result unlikely to have arisen by chance alone, conventionally judged against a threshold such as a p-value below 0.05. It does not by itself show that an effect is large or important.

The range within which a survey or estimate is likely to fall, reflecting uncertainty from sampling. Wider margins mean less precise estimates and weaker support for fine distinctions.

A conclusion drawn from evidence rather than stated directly. Sound inference stays within what the material supports and avoids adding assumptions the passage never made.

An unstated belief that must be true for an argument's conclusion to follow from its evidence. Identifying hidden assumptions is central to evaluating whether reasoning holds.

The arrangement of a passage into premises, evidence and conclusion. Mapping it reveals what is claimed, what supports the claim and where the logical gaps lie.

A stated reason or piece of evidence offered in support of a conclusion. Premises are what an argument rests on; if they are false or weak, the conclusion loses support.

The main claim an argument asks the reader to accept. It is the statement the premises are intended to justify, and it may appear at the start, middle or end of a passage.

A flaw in reasoning where a conclusion does not follow from the evidence offered. Examples include attacking the person rather than the argument and appealing to popularity.

Misrepresenting someone's position in a weaker form and then refuting that distorted version. The original argument is left untouched, so the rebuttal proves nothing.

The presence of more than one reasonable meaning in a word, phrase or sentence. Precision in writing and careful reading both depend on spotting and resolving ambiguity.

Writing that uses short familiar words, active voice and direct sentences so the intended reader understands on first reading. It reduces misreading in professional and public communication.

Adjusting tone, vocabulary, detail and format to suit the knowledge and needs of the intended readers. The same facts may need very different presentation for experts and laypeople.

A short opening section that states the purpose, key findings and recommended action for a busy reader. It should stand alone and let a decision-maker act without reading the full document.

The reasoned application of knowledge, experience and standards to a situation where rules alone do not give a clear answer. It requires justifying the choice and accepting accountability for it.

Choosing a course of action by weighing duties, consequences, fairness and the interests of affected parties. A defensible process considers alternatives and records the reasoning behind the choice.

A situation where a personal interest, financial or otherwise, could improperly influence professional judgement. It must be disclosed and managed, even when no actual bias has occurred.

The professional obligation to act in the interests of those affected and avoid foreseeable harm. It can require action, or restraint, even when no explicit rule demands it.

Agreement given by a person who understands the purpose, risks, benefits and alternatives involved. It must be voluntary and based on adequate, honest information provided in advance.

The duty to protect private information and share it only with those entitled to receive it. It may be limited by law, safety risks or the consent of the person concerned.

A person's right to control how their personal information is collected, used and disclosed. Professional handling of data must respect this right alongside legal and organisational requirements.

Openness about decisions, methods and interests so that others can scrutinise and challenge them. It supports trust and is a safeguard against hidden bias or improper influence.

Being answerable for decisions and their outcomes, including explaining them and accepting consequences. It cannot be delegated simply by following orders or deferring to a superior.

Reporting wrongdoing within or outside an organisation when normal channels fail or are unsafe. It is often protected by law when done in good faith and in the public interest.