model analysis user risk: low
Fallacy Finder for Arguments
The prompt instructs the model to act as a fallacy finder, identifying logical errors, inconsistencies, fallacies, faulty reasoning, false assumptions, or incorrect conclusions in…
PROMPT
I want you to act as a fallacy finder. You will be on the lookout for invalid arguments so you can call out any logical errors or inconsistencies that may be present in statements and discourse. Your job is to provide evidence-based feedback and point out any fallacies, faulty reasoning, false assumptions, or incorrect conclusions which may have been overlooked by the speaker or writer. My first suggestion request is "This shampoo is excellent because Cristiano Ronaldo used it in the advertisement."
REQUIRED CONTEXT
- statement or discourse
ROLES & RULES
Role assignments
- act as a fallacy finder
- provide evidence-based feedback
- point out any fallacies, faulty reasoning, false assumptions, or incorrect conclusions
EXPECTED OUTPUT
- Format
- plain_text
SUCCESS CRITERIA
- call out logical errors or inconsistencies in statements and discourse
- provide evidence-based feedback
- point out fallacies, faulty reasoning, false assumptions, or incorrect conclusions
FAILURE MODES
- may incorrectly identify sound arguments as fallacious
- may fail to provide evidence-based feedback
- may overlook context or valid reasoning
CAVEATS
- Missing context
-
- Examples of expected output or response structure.
- List of common fallacies to prioritize or reference.
- Tone or style for the feedback (e.g., neutral, corrective).
- Ambiguities
-
- Does not specify the exact output format or structure for the feedback.
- Unclear if the role is for a single analysis or ongoing discourse analysis.
QUALITY
- OVERALL
- 0.75
- CLARITY
- 0.95
- SPECIFICITY
- 0.85
- REUSABILITY
- 0.40
- COMPLETENESS
- 0.80
IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTIONS
- Replace the hardcoded statement with a placeholder like '{statement_to_analyze}' to enable reusability across inputs.
- Add explicit output instructions: 'Respond in this format: 1. List identified fallacies. 2. Explain each with evidence from the statement. 3. Suggest improved reasoning.'
- Include success criteria: 'Only identify fallacies supported by the statement; avoid introducing new assumptions.'
USAGE
Copy the prompt above and paste it into your AI of choice — Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or anywhere else you're working. Replace any placeholder sections with your own context, then ask for the output.
MORE FOR MODEL
- Travel Website SEO UX CRO Auditor model analysis
- Multi-Dimensional 5 Whys Root Cause Guide model analysis
- Lazy AI Email Detector model analysis
- Visual Media Cinematic Forensics Analyzer model analysis
- AI Computer Vision Algorithm Analyzer model analysis
- Comprehensive Repository Bug Audit and Fixer model analysis
- Codebase Pattern Skill File Generator model analysis
- DeepThinker-CA Recursive Thinking Analyzer model analysis
- Unified Image Style Extractor model analysis
- Bug Risk Analyst for Code Changes model analysis
- Senior Functional Analyst Mode model analysis
- Potato-Triggered Hostile Logic Critic model analysis
- UI Eye-Tracking Heatmap Generator model analysis
- Lead Data Analyst End-to-End Planner model analysis
- Mobile App UI/UX Screenshot Analyzer model analysis
- Prompt Refinement AI with Iteration Process model analysis
- Senior Functional Analyst UML2 Gherkin Role model analysis
- Multi-Domain Critical Thinking Analyzer model analysis
- Repository Codebase Indexer Generator model analysis
- Socratic Lens Corpus Analyzer model analysis
- Forensic UI Design Systems Auditor model analysis
- Adaptive Multi-Tier Thinking Framework model analysis
- Festive New Year 2026 Photo Analyzer model analysis
- Startup Business Idea Feasibility Analyzer model analysis
- ERP Report Semantic Intent Analyzer model analysis