frmichelin1-3, Exercise 2: "Michelin inspectors are always anonymous"

Model answer (check the details), using the six questions:

1. Who says it? Michelin itself, the press, and many chefs and diners who repeat it.
2. What exactly is claimed? That inspectors never identify themselves. "Always" is strong. It could mean during the meal, or at any time.
3. What would count as evidence? The guide's own statements, accounts of inspectors who revealed themselves, former inspectors' memoirs, interviews with restaurant staff, and any recorded cases.
4. Compared with what? Other guides, some of which use named critics and make no claim of anonymity.
5. Which period? The guide's practice may have changed over the decades.
6. What would change my mind? Several independent reports of inspectors identifying themselves during or before meals, or evidence that restaurants knew when they were being judged.

Evidence found: the guide has said that inspectors may identify themselves after the meal, to ask to see the kitchen, so the claim is not absolute (check). Chefs say they sometimes recognise inspectors, but this is hard to confirm. The memoir of a former inspector says that practices were not as the guide described, and the company disputes it (check).

Verdict: "anonymous when they eat" is the guide's claim and is plausible but cannot be checked from outside; "always anonymous" is too strong. A careful sentence: "Michelin says its inspectors dine anonymously, though they may reveal themselves afterwards."

Care: a claim that cannot be tested should be reported as a claim, with its source named.