Critical Thinking Logical Reasoning

What it does

This skill provides a structured framework for analyzing written arguments and claims using critical thinking and logical reasoning. It guides the AI agent through an eight-step process to identify flaws in reasoning, surface hidden assumptions, and assess the overall soundness of an argument. The goal is to provide clear critiques that highlight material flaws affecting conclusions rather than minor technical errors, while maintaining a charitable interpretation of the original argument.

When to use it

• Evaluating the logic behind a business proposal or strategy document.
• Analyzing arguments presented in research papers or academic articles.
• Critically assessing persuasive writing like editorials or opinion pieces.
• Identifying weaknesses in a legal brief or contract.
• Understanding and evaluating complex reasoning chains in technical documentation.

Key capabilities

• Eight-step argument analysis framework (understanding, claims identification, evidence examination, fallacy detection, assumption surfacing, gap consideration, consistency checking, burden of proof assessment).
• Identification of common logical fallacies (circular reasoning, false dichotomies, appeals to authority/emotion, hasty generalisations).
• Distinguishes between flawed reasoning and false conclusions.
• Structured output format: Summary, Key Issues, Questions to Probe, Bottom Line.

Example prompts

• "Analyze the following text for logical fallacies and weaknesses in its argument: [paste text here]"
• "Using your critical thinking framework, evaluate this proposal: [paste proposal text here]. Provide a summary of key issues."
• "I need you to examine this article and identify any hidden assumptions or gaps in reasoning: [paste article text here]."

Tips & gotchas

• The skill emphasizes understanding the argument before critiquing it. Ensure the agent first demonstrates comprehension before proceeding with analysis.
• It prioritizes identifying flaws in reasoning, not necessarily disproving conclusions – a charitable interpretation is applied.
• The skill focuses on written arguments; it may be less effective with purely conversational or informal exchanges.