It was hypothesized that subjects misrepresent the THOG problem by confusing data and hypotheses. An abstract version of the problem in which the given exemplars and the hypothetical ones were designated by two different labels was used in three experiments. Experiment 1 showed that this version elicits a better performance than the standard version of the problem. Experiments 2 and 3 confirmed these results, by ruling out a possible alternative account of the facilitatory effect obtained in Experiment 1. The present results are discussed in relationship to the general issues of content effects and non-consequentialism in reasoning.