Apply structured critical thinking — identifying claims, evidence, reasoning chains, hidden assumptions, and logical fallacies — to evaluate or construct specific written arguments rigorously. Use this skill when the user presents a concrete argument, claim, op-ed, research finding, or piece of reasoning to be analyzed for logical validity or flaws, even if they say 'is this argument valid', 'what logical fallacies are in this', or 'what assumptions am I making in this thesis'. Do NOT use for casual plan review, trip planning, project risk brainstorming, or pre-mortems — 'poke holes in my plan' requests are red-team / risk review, not argument analysis.
Critical thinking systematically evaluates arguments by decomposing them into claims, evidence, reasoning, and assumptions. It identifies where arguments are strong, weak, or fallacious — not to "win" debates but to arrive at better-justified conclusions.
IRON LAW: Separate the Argument from the Person
Evaluate the ARGUMENT (claim + evidence + reasoning), not the person
making it. A bad person can make a good argument. A trusted expert
can make a bad argument. Ad hominem (attacking the person) and appeal
to authority (trusting the person) are both fallacies.
Every argument has four components:
Step 1: Identify the claim — What exactly is being argued? Restate in one sentence.
Step 2: Examine the evidence
Step 3: Evaluate the reasoning
Step 4: Surface assumptions
| Fallacy | What It Does | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Ad hominem | Attacks the person, not the argument | "You can't talk about economics, you're not an economist" |
| Straw man | Distorts the opponent's argument to attack a weaker version | "You want to reduce military spending? So you want us defenseless?" |
| False dichotomy | Presents only two options when more exist | "You're either with us or against us" |
| Slippery slope | Claims one event will inevitably lead to extreme consequences | "If we allow remote work, soon no one will come to the office ever" |
| Appeal to authority | Uses authority status instead of evidence | "The CEO says AI will replace all jobs, so it must be true" |
| Hasty generalization | Draws broad conclusion from limited cases | "My two friends who studied art are unemployed, so art degrees are useless" |
| Red herring | Introduces irrelevant information to distract | "Yes, our product has bugs, but look at our amazing company culture" |
| Circular reasoning | Conclusion is assumed in the premise | "This is the best approach because there's no better one" |
# Argument Analysis: {Topic}
## Claim
{One-sentence restatement of the core argument}
## Evidence Assessment
| Evidence | Type | Sufficient? | Relevant? | Current? |
|----------|------|------------|-----------|----------|
| {evidence 1} | {fact/anecdote/expert/stat} | Y/N | Y/N | Y/N |
## Reasoning Evaluation
- Logical validity: {valid / fallacious}
- Fallacies detected: {list with explanation}
- Alternative explanations: {what else could explain the evidence}
## Hidden Assumptions
1. {assumption} — reasonable? {Y/N, why}
## Verdict
- Argument strength: Strong / Moderate / Weak
- Key weakness: {the biggest flaw}
- What would strengthen it: {what evidence or reasoning is missing}
Scenario: Evaluating the claim "Remote work reduces productivity"
references/formal-logic.mdreferences/fallacy-catalog.md