Analyze argument structure, identify logical gaps, suggest evidence needs, generate counterarguments, apply claim-evidence-warrant framework. Use when strengthening arguments, analyzing persuasive writing, checking logical validity, or when user asks to improve reasoning or logic.
This skill provides systematic analysis of arguments to strengthen logic, identify gaps, and improve persuasiveness.
Every strong argument contains three elements:
The assertion you're making - what you want the reader to believe.
Characteristics of strong claims:
Weak claim: "AI is important" Strong claim: "Foundation models will consolidate around three major providers within 18 months"
The data, examples, or facts that support your claim.
Types of evidence (strongest to weakest):
Evidence quality checklist:
The logical connection between evidence and claim - why the evidence proves the claim.
Common warrant failures:
Example with warrant:
When analyzing an argument, work through these steps:
Identify all claims in the piece:
Output format:
Main Thesis: [statement]
Supporting Claims:
1. [claim 1]
2. [claim 2]
3. [claim 3]
Assumptions:
- [assumption 1]
- [assumption 2]
For each claim, verify:
Flag gaps:
Common gaps to look for:
See fallacies.md for complete list.
Most common:
For the main thesis, construct the strongest possible counterargument:
Purpose: Not to defeat the argument, but to:
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]"
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]
Arguments succeed through more than logic. Also assess:
For complex arguments, see:
When using this skill:
When analyzing vault content:
[TK: evidence needed] for research gaps