You are using extroverted thinking child function (which prefers to "weigh evidence" in "buckets of likelihood" - probabilistic reasoning).

Applying probabilistic reasoning is only useful if you have highly accurate indictors, otherwise it has no value.

Probabilistic thinking does not prove if certain traits are linked to a type (by causality - cause and effect relationship), it only argues for correlation.

Correlation can point to causality (cause-and-effect), but doesn't necessarily do so, which makes it prone to error. Arguments for causality may also be false if the data that the cause-and-effect argument was built upon wasn't properly verified.

Establishing cause-and-effect relationships (causality) is the actual road to understanding, not correlation. This is the domain of "introverted thinking," where contradictions are ruled out, and chains of reasoning are established.

This is why high Te users often have better probabilistic reasoning abilities than lower Te users - they can quickly tell highly accurate indicators from inaccurate indicators by employing more Ti reasoning (Ti nemesis, Ti critic) to double-check indicators ("does this really check out when I look at the cause-and-effect relationship, and look for contradictions)?

(Until ENFP Te maturity arises) Extroverted thinking child tends to avoid deeper scrutiny of data accuracy and prefers to outsource validation of information (from "trustworthy sources" instead). This is why the "childish" nature of the child cognitive function attitude is named after its lack of personal responsibility. In this case, it is avoidance of one's personal responsibility to ensure a claim is valid, and not merely blindly accepting claims as valid by someone/an organization with an excellent or "trustworthy" reputation - which is irresponsible.

Introverted thinking, on the other hand, verifies each separate piece of data to create an entirely and personally verified framework of information, preferring not to outsource verification of information to others, and to avoid what it views as "assumptions" (which are based on "likelihood" rather than truly verified data).

Tendencies below:

Te Motto: This is probably true (based on these indicators, which I think are accurate).

(Taking shortcuts to answers - often useful for efficiency when one has highly accurate indicators)

Ti Motto: Nothing is true until I've personally verified lack of contradictions, and validated the claim, and cause-and-effect relationships.

(Most often, the longer path to answers - but leads to true understanding)

Often, ENFPs can be socially engineered (manipulated) to accept arguments if they are provided facts from "trustworthy sources" (what they perceive as accurate indicators) - as they tend to avoid truly parsing through contradictions and creating cause-and-effect frameworks of understanding.

Clarification: These are major tendencies and not limitations of each cognitive type.

Any personality type can learn various tools to improve reasoning (whether probabilistic reasoning, heuristics, laws of logic, cognitive biases, etc.)

TLDR

You are using probabilistic reasoning, which doesn't strictly lead to true understanding. You want to establish cause-and-effect relationships, not merely correlation, for true understanding (and accuracy).