I'm not sure you can if the definition of "critical thinking" is forming snap solutions to novel problems in a few minutes. Experience is expressed by coming to quick solutions to familiarish problems and considered solutions to unfamiliar problems. And with experience comes intuition about what is and isn't so important. There is just no way to move braing-teasers to the important side of an experienced intuition when the problem domain resembles that in which a mature individual is experienced.
When I was actively providing advice on the Architectural Registration Examination, I used to see this all the time with the Site Design test. The test gave the test candidate ninety minutes to organize several components on an unfamiliar site against a set of competing requirements and constraints. A common rant in the discussion forum was "I failed even though I've been laying out sites professionally for {N} years," where {N} might be from three to ten.
The first ninety minutes of real world site design consists of opening the civil engineer's email, creating a directory to for the project, saving the attached CAD file, cleaning it up enough to be usable for architectural design purposes, printing the regulatory requirements for the project file, talking with the principal-in-charge about the client requirements, and then going to lunch because it's been four hours and maybe starting on the design in the afternoon or later in the week because that's the way the world works and the client requirements will probably change anyway.
Which is how experience made it easy to fail the test because of the ways the test did not reflect the real world. The real world has depth and a lot it-depends and experience pays off precisely because it handles the depths and makes informed choices about all the it-depends.
Or to put it another way, Fizz-Buzz in TensorFlow, https://joelgrus.com/2016/05/23/fizz-buzz-in-tensorflow/