- name
- argument-audit
- description
- 论点审计 - An analytical tool that evaluates the logical structure, evidence quality, and persuasiveness of arguments. Use when user asks about 论点分析、论证评估、逻辑审查、观点评估, or wants to analyze the strength and validity of an argument.
Argument Audit (论点审计)
Overview
This skill provides systematic analysis and evaluation of arguments. It helps users understand the logical structure of arguments, assess the quality of evidence, identify logical fallacies, and evaluate overall persuasiveness. Useful for critical thinking, debate preparation, writing analysis, and decision-making.
When to Use This Skill
- Analyzing essays, articles, or opinion pieces
- Preparing for debates or discussions
- Evaluating business proposals or recommendations
- Reviewing academic arguments
- Self-checking own arguments before presenting
- Understanding propaganda or misleading content
What This Skill Analyzes
1. Logical Structure
- Argument identification — Main claim vs. supporting points
- Reasoning chains — How conclusions follow from premises
- Argument type — Deductive, inductive, abductive reasoning
- Structure flaws — Missing links, unsupported assumptions
2. Evidence Quality
- Source credibility — Authority, expertise, potential bias
- Evidence relevance — Direct support vs. tangential
- Evidence sufficiency — Adequate support for claim
- Data quality — Sample size, methodology, recency
3. Logical Fallacies
- Ad hominem attacks
- Straw man arguments
- False dilemmas
- Slippery slope
- Circular reasoning
- Appeal to authority/emotion
- Hasty generalizations
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc
- Red herring
- Tu quoque
4. Persuasiveness Assessment
- Overall argument strength (1-10 scale)
- Emotional vs. rational appeal balance
- Counterargument consideration
- Balance and objectivity
Audit Framework
| Dimension | Criteria | Questions |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity | Is the main argument clear? | What exactly is being argued? |
| Validity | Does the reasoning hold? | Do conclusions follow from premises? |
| Soundness | Are premises true? | Is the evidence credible? |
| Completeness | Are key points covered? | What's missing? |
| Fairness | Are alternatives considered? | Are counterarguments addressed? |
Workflow
- Input Analysis — Parse the argument into components
- Structure Mapping — Diagram the logical structure
- Evidence Review — Assess each piece of supporting evidence
- Fallacy Check — Scan for common logical fallacies
- Strength Rating — Evaluate overall persuasiveness
- Improvement Suggestions — Recommend ways to strengthen
Usage Examples
Analyzing Written Arguments
"帮我分析这篇文章的论点"
"这篇论文的论证有什么问题?"
"这个商业计划书的逻辑是否严密?"Debate Preparation
"帮我找出对方论点中的漏洞"
"如何反驳这个观点?"
"我的论点有什么薄弱环节?"Critical Evaluation
"这个说法有什么逻辑问题?"
"这个专家的观点可信吗?"
"这段内容有哪些隐藏的假设?"Output Format
For each audit, provide:
## Argument Summary
[1-2 sentence description of the main argument]
## Structure Analysis
[Diagram or breakdown of reasoning structure]
## Evidence Assessment
| Evidence | Source | Credibility | Relevance | Rating |
|----------|--------|-------------|-----------|--------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
## Fallacy Detection
- [List any logical fallacies found with explanations]
## Strength Rating
- Clarity: X/10
- Validity: X/10
- Soundness: X/10
- Completeness: X/10
- Overall: X/10
## Recommendations
[Suggestions for strengthening the argument]Limitations
- Cannot access external sources to verify evidence claims
- Assessment is based on provided text only
- Context-dependent factors may not be fully captured
- Subjective elements exist in persuasiveness ratings
Related Skills
summarize— For summarizing argument contentcognitive-reframe— For rephrasing argumentsdecision-fatigue-reliever— For simplifying complex arguments