critical-thinking-logical-reasoning

A guided method for critically analysing the reasoning in written content — articles, blogs, transcripts, and reports, rather than code — to be used specifically when explicitly asked to critique or analyse an argument. It frames the task through a lens of critical thinking and logical reasoning and walks through a disciplined sequence: first understand the argument well enough to restate it in a way its author would accept, then identify the core claims (separating conclusions from supporting points), examine whether the evidence is sufficient, relevant, and credibly sourced, and spot logical issues such as fallacies, unsupported leaps, and circular reasoning. It distinguishes the standards different claims require — empirical claims need evidence, normative claims need justified principles, and definitional claims need consistency — and prompts surfacing hidden assumptions, considering what is missing (alternative explanations, contradictory evidence, unstated limitations), assessing internal consistency, and weighing the burden of proof against the significance of the claim. Output follows a fixed structure: a one-sentence Summary of the core claim and overall assessment; a Key Issues section bulleting the most significant problems with why each matters and, where relevant, how a weak argument could be strengthened; a Questions to Probe section of two to five questions a decision-maker should ask; and a Verdict giving the actionable takeaway. The guidelines emphasize charity paired with rigor — assume good intentions, critique the argument rather than the person, prioritize issues that genuinely affect the conclusion over minor technical flaws, apply a 'so what' test, distinguish 'flawed' from 'wrong', acknowledge uncertainty in one's own analysis, avoid fact-checking empirical claims unless obviously implausible, and refrain from manufacturing criticism when an argument is sound. Concise output and Australian English spelling are required throughout.