argument-evaluation

# Argument Evaluation An argument is a set of statements in which some (the premises) are offered as reasons for believing another (the conclusion). Critical thinkers evaluate arguments by reconstructing them, testing their logical form, checking the truth of the premises, and engaging with the strongest version of the opposing case. This skill provides a systematic procedure for doing all four. **Agent affinity:** paul (overall framing, elements of reasoning), elder (structural reconstruction) **Concept IDs:** crit-argument-structure, crit-deductive-reasoning, crit-inductive-reasoning, crit-charitable-interpretation ## The Evaluation Toolbox at a Glance | # | Operation | Purpose | Key signal | |---|---|---|---| | 1 | Premise extraction | Pull claims that support the conclusion | "Because," "since," "given that" | | 2 | Conclusion extraction | Identify what is being argued for | "Therefore," "so," "thus," "hence" | | 3 | Argument mapping | Show dependency structure | Some premises support sub-conclusions | | 4 | Reconstruction | Restate in standard form | Numbered premises, explicit conclusion | | 5 | Validity check | Does conclusion follow if premises are true? | Counterexample to form | | 6 | Soundness check | Are the premises actually true? | Independent fact check | | 7 | Strength check | For inductive arguments, how probable is the conclusion? | Sample quality, base rates | | 8 | Steel-manning | Reconstruct the strongest version | Add missing support the author coul...