Lesson Content

Logic and reasoning review.

"Review the argument in this [document / section]. Identify: (1) any conclusions that do not follow from the evidence presented, (2) any claims made without adequate support, (3) any assumptions that are stated as facts rather than identified as assumptions, and (4) any logical gaps between premises and conclusions."

The "why should I believe this" test.

For each major claim:

"For this claim – '[paste claim]' – if a skeptical reader asked 'why should I believe this?', does this document provide sufficient support? What additional evidence or explanation would address the skepticism?"

Consistency checking for multi-section documents.

Long documents often contradict themselves – different sections written at different times, with slightly different framing.

"Review this document for internal consistency. Specifically: (1) do different sections make claims about [topic] that are inconsistent with each other? (2) does the conclusion match the analysis that preceded it? (3) are there any numbers, statistics, or claims that appear in more than one section with different values?"

Unstated assumption identification.

"What assumptions does this argument rest on that are never made explicit? Which of these unstated assumptions, if challenged, would most significantly weaken the argument?"

Completeness checking.

"What would a thorough reader of this [document type] expect to find that is not present? What common objection does this document fail to address? What question does this document raise without answering?"

The completeness check is especially useful for proposals, reports, and analyses that are expected to stand on their own – where unanswered questions undermine confidence.