Reconciling Contradictory Spanish Evidence While Preserving Uncertainty

Reconciling Contradictory Spanish Evidence While Preserving Uncertainty

In this lesson, you will compare evidence that appears to contradict itself. You will check source, scope, time period, definitions, and level of analysis before deciding that two findings are genuinely incompatible. You will reconcile them only where the evidence allows and state clearly what remains unresolved.

Evidence set: remote work

Source A:

En la encuesta anual, el 72 % de los empleados afirmó ser más productivo trabajando desde casa al menos parte de la semana. — In the annual survey, 72% of employees said they were more productive working from home at least part of the week.

Source B:

Los registros de proyectos muestran que el tiempo medio de entrega aumentó un 8 % durante el mismo año. — Project records show that average delivery time increased by 8% during the same year.

Check what each source measures

percepción individual de productividad — individual perception of productivity.

tiempo de entrega de proyectos — project delivery time.

These are not the same variable.

Los dos datos pueden coexistir porque miden niveles distintos: percepción individual y resultado de proyecto. — The two findings can coexist because they measure different levels: individual perception and project outcome.

Do not invent the mechanism

A coordination explanation may be plausible, but it is not established by the two sources alone.

Add Source C

El número medio de pasos de aprobación por proyecto pasó de cuatro a seis tras un cambio de control interno. — The average number of approval steps per project increased from four to six after an internal-control change.

El aumento de pasos de aprobación ofrece una explicación alternativa que debe considerarse antes de atribuir el retraso al trabajo remoto. — The increase in approval steps offers an alternative explanation that should be considered before attributing the delay to remote work.

Check time period

Durante el primer trimestre, el tiempo de entrega bajó un 5 %. — During the first quarter, delivery time fell by 5%.

This can coexist with an annual average increase.

Check definition

La empresa informó de que “productividad” aumentó un 10 %. — The company reported that “productivity” increased by 10%.

Ask:

¿Cómo define la empresa “productividad”? — How does the company define “productivity”?

Check population

Entre los equipos de atención al cliente, la resolución por hora aumentó un 12 %. — Among customer-service teams, resolutions per hour increased by 12%.

This applies to one subgroup, not the entire company.

True contradiction

El informe financiero afirma que el gasto total de viaje fue de 2,4 millones de euros. — The financial report states that total travel spending was 2.4 million euros.

La auditoría afirma que el gasto total de viaje para el mismo periodo y con la misma definición fue de 3,1 millones de euros. — The audit states that total travel spending for the same period and with the same definition was 3.1 million euros.

If period and definition truly match, the figures conflict.

Do not average incompatible figures

Better:

Las dos fuentes ofrecen cifras incompatibles para el mismo concepto y periodo. Antes de estimar el gasto necesitamos saber qué registros utilizó cada una. — The two sources provide incompatible figures for the same concept and period. Before estimating spending, we need to know which records each source used.

Information that could change the judgment

¿Incluye una fuente gastos reembolsados fuera del sistema principal? — Does one source include expenses reimbursed outside the main system?

¿Usan la misma fecha de contabilización? — Do they use the same accounting date?

¿Se corrigió alguna cifra después del cierre? — Was any figure corrected after closing?

Integrated conclusion

La evidencia disponible no permite afirmar simplemente que el trabajo remoto aumentó o redujo la productividad. Los empleados declaran mayor productividad individual, mientras que el tiempo anual de entrega de proyectos aumentó. Parte de esa diferencia puede deberse a que las medidas captan fenómenos distintos y a que el proceso de aprobación cambió durante el mismo periodo. Para atribuir causalidad al trabajo remoto harían falta datos que separen esos factores. — The available evidence does not allow us simply to state that remote work increased or reduced productivity. Employees report greater individual productivity, while annual project delivery time increased. Part of the difference may be due to the measures capturing different phenomena and to the approval process changing during the same period. To attribute causality to remote work, data would be needed that separate those factors.

A practical contradictory-evidence method

1. Check whether the sources measure the same variable.
2. Check time period and population.
3. Check definitions and units.
4. Ask whether different levels of analysis can coexist.
5. Identify alternative explanations without treating them as proven.
6. Recognize genuine contradiction when scope, definition, and period match.
7. State what additional information could change the judgment.

From Evidence Reconciliation to Cross-Cultural Explanation

You can now reconcile evidence where possible and preserve conflict where the sources truly remain incompatible. The next lesson teaches Explaining Complex Spanish Arguments Across Cultural and Linguistic Differences.