Probing the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and building robust solutions for Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) remain central challenges in natural language understanding.
Furthermore, the rapid proliferation of LLMs has created the implicit assumption that more sophisticated prompting techniques yield better performance.
Several studies claim such gains, but report them under differing models, prompt wordings and answer-extraction rules, so the gains cannot be attributed to the technique alone.
We address this gap with ReasonLab, an evaluation framework in which the prompting technique is a first-class experimental variable alongside the model and the dataset, and which retains every generation for inspection.
Using ReasonLab we conduct a controlled study of 8 prompting techniques across 10 MCQA datasets, 27 model configurations and 480,927 evaluations at temperature 0. We find that the prompting technique is a minor determinant of accuracy:
on configurations without a reasoning budget the reasoning triggers improve on direct prompting by only 3.92 to 4.69 pp and are indistinguishable from one another, and on configurations with reasoning enabled no technique differs by more than 0.51 pp.
Self-Generate is the only technique with a consistent effect, a reduction of 2.95 pp.
We further investigate three phenomena:
- the comparison of models on a common set of datasets, where model size does not predict accuracy,
- the trade-offs across thinking budgets, where enabling reasoning is worth up to 12.74 pp whereas an eightfold budget increase adds only 0.48 to 2.10 pp,
- the variation in dataset difficulty, with 60% of benchmarks below 70% accuracy and a 43.9 pp spread from easiest to hardest.
These results suggest that, for MCQA, the prompting technique is a minor lever compared with enabling model reasoning, and that substantial headroom remains.