Context Slice Argument Structure
Every argument has three core components: premises (supporting claims), a conclusion (the claim being argued), and the reasoning that connects them. Strong arguments have true premises, valid reasoning, and conclusions that actually follow.
Identifying Components
Conclusion indicators: "therefore," "thus," "so," "consequently," "it follows that," "we can conclude," "this means," "this shows." The conclusion is what the argument is trying to prove—the main point being asserted.
Premise indicators: "because," "since," "given that," "as shown by," "the reason is," "for example." Premises are the evidence or reasons offered in support of the conclusion.
Implicit components: Not everything is stated explicitly. Arguments often rely on unstated assumptions (implicit premises) or leave the conclusion implied. Surface these hidden elements—they're often where weaknesses hide.
The Analysis Process
Step 1: Find the conclusion first. What is the author trying to convince you of? This anchors the analysis. Everything else either supports this claim or it's irrelevant.
Step 2: Identify explicit premises. What reasons are given? List each distinct claim offered as support.
Step 3: Surface implicit premises. What must be true for the reasoning to work? These unstated assumptions often reveal the argument's weakest points.
Step 4: Map the reasoning structure. How do the premises connect to the conclusion? Is it a chain (A→B→C) or convergent (A+B+C→D)?
Step 5: Evaluate each link. Is each premise true? Does each inference follow? Where are the gaps?
Argument Patterns
Deductive arguments claim their conclusion follows necessarily from premises. If the premises are true and the logic valid, the conclusion must be true. "All A are B. X is A. Therefore X is B."
Inductive arguments claim their conclusion is probably true given the premises. Strong inductive arguments make the conclusion likely but not certain. "Every A we've observed is B. Therefore the next A will probably be B."
Analogical arguments draw conclusions based on similarities. "X worked in situation A. Situation B is similar to A. Therefore X will work in B." These depend on the relevance of the similarities.
Causal arguments claim one thing causes another. These require showing not just correlation but mechanism—why would A cause B?
Evaluating Strength
Rate arguments on these dimensions:
Premise truth: Are the factual claims accurate? Are they verifiable? What's the source?
Relevance: Do the premises actually bear on the conclusion, or are they tangential?
Sufficiency: Even if premises are true and relevant, are they enough? Could the conclusion be wrong even if all premises are true?
Counterarguments: What's the strongest objection? Has it been addressed?
Output Format
When presenting an argument breakdown:
## Argument Analysis
### Conclusion
[The main claim being argued]
### Explicit Premises
1. [First stated reason]
2. [Second stated reason]
...
### Implicit Premises
- [Unstated assumption the argument relies on]
- [Another hidden assumption]
### Reasoning Structure
[How premises connect to conclusion—chain, convergent, or mixed]
### Strength Assessment
**Premise Evaluation:**
- Premise 1: [True/False/Uncertain] — [Why]
- Premise 2: [True/False/Uncertain] — [Why]
**Reasoning Evaluation:**
- [Does the conclusion follow from premises?]
- [Are there gaps in the logic?]
**Overall Assessment:** [Strong/Moderate/Weak]
[Summary of key strengths and weaknesses]
### Key Vulnerabilities
- [Most significant weakness]
- [Second weakness if applicable]Steelman and Weakman
Steelmanning means presenting the strongest possible version of an argument—giving it the most charitable interpretation, the best evidence, the most favorable framing. This tests whether even the best version holds up.
Weakmanning (or strawmanning honestly) means presenting the weakest version—the interpretation most vulnerable to criticism. This identifies the argument's floor.
The gap between steelman and weakman reveals how much the argument depends on interpretation and framing versus solid reasoning.