Logical Fallacy Detector

Analyze the following argument for logical fallacies, weak reasoning, and unsupported assumptions.

Argument:
"""
[ARGUMENT]
"""

For each issue found:
1. **Name** the fallacy or reasoning error (use the standard name, e.g., "Ad Hominem", "False Dichotomy", "Slippery Slope")
2. **Quote** the specific sentence or phrase that contains it
3. **Explain** why this is a logical error — what does it assume that isn't justified?
4. **Suggest** how the argument could be restructured to make that point validly

After listing individual issues, give an overall assessment:
- Which single flaw most undermines the argument?
- What would the argument need to establish to be logically sound?

If the argument contains no fallacies, say so clearly and explain why it holds up.

How to Use

Paste any argument — a paragraph from an article, a debate position, a product claim, a policy argument — into [ARGUMENT]. This prompt is most useful for fact-checking persuasive writing, preparing counterarguments, or teaching critical thinking. The instruction to also suggest valid reformulations means you get constructive output, not just a list of errors.

Variables

Variable	Description
[ARGUMENT]	The text containing the argument to analyze — can be a few sentences or several paragraphs

Tips

• Works well as a second pass after reading an op-ed or report: paste the key claims section and ask the AI to identify which ones rest on weak foundations.
• For debate prep, use it on your own argument first to find weaknesses before an opponent does.
• Add "Focus especially on statistical claims and causal language (proves, causes, leads to)" to flag the most common sources of weak reasoning in data-heavy arguments.
• Follow up with: "What evidence would genuinely support the conclusion the author is trying to reach?" to redirect toward constructive research.