analyze-argumentation-flowlisted

Read the whole text once before flagging anything. Reconstruct the central thesis in one sentence. Do this even when the author never states it. Report a missing thesis as a finding when you cannot reconstruct it. List supporting claims in order and note the evidence for each. Judge the argument the author makes, not the one you wish they made. Distinguish flaws of reasoning from flaws of taste. Distinguish `the conclusion is wrong` from `the argument is weak`. Report only the second kind. Flag every factual claim without support. Surface unstated premises the argument leans on. Check every key term for equivocation. Test the inference at every `therefore`, `so`, `thus`, or `hence`. Test it at every `which means` or `as a result` too. Hunt for circular reasoning. Check each premise's independent believability. Name specific fallacies and quote the triggering line. Use the names from `references/fallacies.md`. Treat one anecdote as one anecdote. Watch for cherry-picked evidence and survivorship bias. Mark every analogy and ask where it breaks. Flag rhetorical questions that stand in for arguments. Treat `obviously`, `clearly`, and `everyone knows` as red flags. Treat `it goes without saying` and `as we all agree` the same way. Watch for loaded language replacing evidence. Check the author addresses the strongest counterargument. Use the one a fair opponent would raise. Notice when burden of proof shifts onto the reader. Hunt for contradictions across paragraphs. Compare the in