Argument Analysis

Evidence quality checklist:

• Recent and relevant
• From credible source
• Specific (not vague generalities)
• Sufficient quantity
• Directly supports the claim

3. Warrant

The logical connection between evidence and claim - why the evidence proves the claim.

Common warrant failures:

• Assuming the connection is obvious when it isn't
• Jumping from evidence to claim without explanation
• Unstated assumptions that reader may not share

Example with warrant:

• Claim: "Remote work increases productivity"
• Evidence: "Microsoft's 2024 study showed 15% output increase"
• Warrant: "When employees control their environment and eliminate commute time, they can focus for longer uninterrupted periods, leading to measurable output gains"

Analysis Process

When analyzing an argument, work through these steps:

Step 1: Map the Argument Structure

Identify all claims in the piece:

1. Main thesis (central claim)
2. Supporting claims (sub-arguments)
3. Assumptions (unstated claims)

Output format:

Main Thesis: [statement]

Supporting Claims:
1. [claim 1]
2. [claim 2]
3. [claim 3]

Assumptions:
- [assumption 1]
- [assumption 2]

Step 2: Check Each Claim for CEW Completeness

For each claim, verify:

• ✅ Claim is stated clearly
• ✅ Evidence is provided
• ✅ Warrant connects evidence to claim

Flag gaps:

• 🚩 Claim without evidence
• 🚩 Evidence without warrant
• 🚩 Weak or inappropriate evidence type
• 🚩 Warrant requires unstated assumptions

Step 3: Identify Logical Gaps

Common gaps to look for:

Missing Evidence

• Claims asserted without support
• Vague references ("studies show", "experts say")
• Insufficient quantity of evidence

Weak Warrants

• Leap from evidence to claim without explanation
• Assumes reader shares unstated beliefs
• Connection is tenuous or requires multiple steps

Unstated Assumptions

• Premises taken for granted
• Cultural or contextual assumptions
• Value judgments presented as facts

Logical Fallacies

See fallacies.md for complete list.

Most common:

• False cause: Correlation ≠ causation
• Cherry-picking: Selective evidence, ignoring counter-examples
• Strawman: Misrepresenting opposing view
• Slippery slope: Unwarranted chain of consequences
• Appeal to authority: Expert opinion outside their expertise
• Hasty generalization: Conclusion from too few examples

Step 4: Generate Counterarguments (Steel-manning)

For the main thesis, construct the strongest possible counterargument:

1. State the counter-claim clearly
2. Provide counter-evidence (what would opposing side cite?)
3. Identify unaddressed weaknesses in original argument

Purpose: Not to defeat the argument, but to:

• Expose vulnerabilities that need addressing
• Strengthen the argument by anticipating objections
• Ensure claims are defensible

Step 5: Suggest Improvements

For each identified gap, suggest specific fixes:

Gap: Claim without evidence Fix: "Add [specific type of evidence needed]"

Gap: Weak warrant Fix: "Explain why [evidence] supports [claim] by addressing [assumption]"

Gap: Logical fallacy Fix: "Replace [fallacy] with [correct reasoning]"

Output Format for Analysis

When analyzing a piece, use this structure:

## Argument Structure Map

**Main Thesis**: [statement]

**Supporting Claims**:
1. [claim 1]
2. [claim 2]
3. [claim 3]

**Key Assumptions**:
- [assumption 1]
- [assumption 2]

---

## CEW Analysis

### Claim 1: [statement]
- **Evidence provided**: [Yes/No/Weak]
- **Evidence quality**: [assessment]
- **Warrant**: [Explicit/Implicit/Missing]
- **Gap**: [if any]
- **Suggested fix**: [specific action]

[Repeat for each claim]

---

## Logical Gaps & Fallacies

1. **[Line/paragraph reference]**: [Type of gap]
   - **Problem**: [description]
   - **Impact**: [why it weakens argument]
   - **Fix**: [specific suggestion]

---

## Steel-man Counterargument

**Counter-claim**: [strongest opposing view]

**Counter-evidence**: [what opponent would cite]

**Vulnerabilities in original**:
- [weakness 1]
- [weakness 2]

**How to address**:
- [specific recommendations]

---

## Evidence Needs

Research/sources needed to strengthen argument:
1. [specific evidence type] for [claim]
2. [specific evidence type] for [claim]

---

## Overall Assessment

**Strengths**:
- [what works well]

**Weaknesses**:
- [critical gaps]

**Priority fixes** (highest impact):
1. [fix 1]
2. [fix 2]
3. [fix 3]

Rhetorical Analysis (Beyond Logic)

Arguments succeed through more than logic. Also assess:

Ethos (Credibility)

• Does writer establish expertise?
• Are sources credible and cited?
• Is tone appropriate for audience?

Pathos (Emotional Appeal)

• Are examples vivid and relatable?
• Does emotional appeal support (not replace) logic?
• Is audience's perspective considered?

Kairos (Timing/Context)

• Is argument relevant to current moment?
• Does it address timely concerns?
• Is framing appropriate for context?

Advanced Frameworks

For complex arguments, see:

• frameworks.md - Toulmin model, Rogerian argument
• fallacies.md - Complete fallacy reference

Instructions for Claude

When using this skill:

1. Always map argument structure first - don't jump to critique
2. Use CEW framework consistently - every claim needs evidence and warrant
3. Be specific in suggestions - "add evidence" is too vague; specify what type
4. Steel-man, don't strawman - construct the strongest counterargument
5. Prioritize gaps - focus on highest-impact issues first
6. Consider audience - what assumptions can you make with this readership?
7. Balance logic and rhetoric - both matter for persuasiveness

When analyzing vault content:

• Reference house-rulebook principles
• Note pipeline stage (draft may have gaps that need TK tags)
• Suggest using [TK: evidence needed] for research gaps
• Consider whether piece is exploratory (looser logic OK) vs. persuasive (tight logic required)