fallacy-bias-and-manipulation-analysis

name	fallacy-bias-and-manipulation-analysis
description	A structured framework for AI agents to analyse text for logical fallacies, cognitive biases, rhetorical manipulation, and other forms of untruthful reasoning.
version	1
aligned	"2026-05-26T00:00:00.000Z"

Fallacy, Bias & Manipulation Analysis

Audit natural-language text — articles, speeches, op-eds, ads, scientific claims, political rhetoric — for flawed reasoning, exploited biases, rhetorical manipulation, and statistical deception.

Activation

Trigger only when explicitly requested: "analyse for fallacies", "find the cognitive biases", "audit this reasoning", "is this propaganda?", "what rhetorical tricks", "stress-test this argument", "find the manipulation".

Pairs With

• intuitive-thinking - when a manipulation or framing concern starts as a hunch. Capture it as (intuition — unwarranted) before naming fallacies. This skill is one tool in the truth-seeking toolbox. Compose it with:

• scientific-fact-classification — when a flagged passage cites scientific findings, classify the underlying claim's evidence strength rather than only naming the rhetorical move.

• investigative-reasoning — when the rhetoric belongs to a contested event, hand the residual claim-set to dual-hypothesis construction.

• first-principles-thinking — when a load-bearing premise needs to be decomposed to its bedrock before a fallacy flag is defensible.

• peer-review — when the rhetoric is wrapped around a scientific paper, route the paper to full review.

• belief-revision — when new evidence emerges about a previously analysed text and a calibrated update is needed.

When This Skill Is Silent Or Ambiguous

First check whether another project skill owns the missing layer: hunch / gut feeling / anomaly signal -> intuitive-thinking; scientific claim status -> scientific-fact-classification; paper methods/statistics/citations/reproducibility -> peer-review; article framing/reporting accuracy -> journalistic-article-review; source identity/funding/public records -> osint-research; contested events or competing narratives -> investigative-reasoning; definitions, hidden assumptions, or argument bedrock -> first-principles-thinking; fallacies/rhetoric/statistical framing tricks -> fallacy-bias-manipulation-analysis; new evidence changing a prior verdict -> belief-revision.

If no skill clearly owns the gap, reason from first principles and explicit warrants. Built-in knowledge may suggest hypotheses, search terms, possible failure modes, or questions to verify, but any empirical premise remains (memory — unverified) until traced. Reasoning may connect warranted premises; it may not manufacture premises.

Research Discipline (CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md)

This skill audits text the user supplies; it does not normally fetch sources. But the rules in CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md → Operating rules still bind whenever an analytical finding invokes empirical evidence:

• Rule 1 (pre-search hypothesis registration) — applies only when the analyst undertakes outside investigation; otherwise inactive here.
• Rule 2 (steelman from primary literature) — when the text characterises another's position to attack it, fetch that position's own primary statement before judging the move "straw man" or "fair".
• Rule 3 (primary before secondary) — when the text cites a study or source, fetch the primary before accepting or refuting the text's characterisation of it.
• Rule 4 (map institutional networks) — when the text claims independent corroboration ("studies show", "multiple outlets report"), check whether the sources share funder / owner / mandate before treating them as independent.
• Rule 5 (Tier 0 priority for time-sensitive claims) — applies only when the analyst undertakes outside investigation into historical or time-sensitive claims; otherwise inactive here.
• Rule 6 (bias self-audit) — enforced in ## Self-Audit of the output template.
• Rule 7 (minimum search volumes) — applies only when the analyst undertakes outside investigation; otherwise inactive here.
• Rule 8 (hostility check on sources) — when the text recruits an authority, name that authority's funding / alignment / mandate alongside the citation.
• Rule 9 (interactive refinement) — applies the moment the user pushes back on a flag, offers a counter-argument, or supplies "actually, this is what the author meant" framing. User contributions are labelled (user-supplied — unverified) and treated as hypotheses to test against the text, never as authority that overrides a flag.
• Rule 10 (objective report voice) — write the audit as a standalone verdict on the claim or text, with no requester references in the report prose.

Warrant Labels (Project Standard)

Every load-bearing factual claim this skill invokes (e.g. "this technique is documented", "this statistic is established") carries a warrant per CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md:

Label	Meaning
(traced)	Followed evidence chain to a primary source fetched in this session. State URL + access date.
(deferred to consensus)	Relying on a named social/institutional consensus mechanism, such as a literature body, regulatory body, or textbook. Consensus is not scientific warrant; for scientific claims, treat it only as a political/social prior unless traced to reproduced or replicated evidence.
(deferred, fragile)	Deferred to consensus, but known failure modes apply: funder capture, ideological capture, prestige cascade, replication crisis, or similar. State which.
(memory — unverified)	Recalled from training data, not verified this session. Never load-bearing without an explicit caveat that it could be wrong.
(user-supplied — unverified)	Provided during interactive refinement and not verified in-session. Treat as a hypothesis to test, never as authority.
(intuition — unwarranted)	A gut feeling, anomaly signal, or pattern impression. It may generate hypotheses and search leads, but is never evidence and never load-bearing.

The fallacy labels themselves are analytical (definitional), not empirical — they do not require a warrant, but any empirical claim recruited to defend them does.

If sources are fetched, record for each cited source: URL, access date, publication date where relevant, warrant label, and funding / ownership / mandate / national alignment where relevant.

---

Phase 0 — Pre-Analysis Discipline

0a. Charity (steelman first). Reconstruct the argument in its strongest form using the author's own best phrasing. A fallacy flag survives only if the error persists under charitable reading.

0b. Genre. Hold the text to its own genre's standards, not formal logic's: formal argument · journalistic/opinion · political/campaign · marketing · scientific popularisation · social-media · educational · interpersonal-manipulative.

0c. Position-neutrality. A valid argument for a false conclusion is still valid; an invalid argument for a true conclusion is still invalid. Never:

• "Conclusion is wrong → must contain fallacy"
• "This author is known for bad arguments → this one is too"
• "Aligns with my priors → reasoning sound"
• "Taboo topic → any defence is fallacious"

0d. Burden. For each flag: (1) quote, (2) name the fault, (3) explain under charitable reading, (4) state the non-fallacious version. Labelling without demonstration is itself a fallacy.

---

Phase 1 — Argument Map

Thesis:              [one-sentence central claim]
Load-bearing claims: C1 [evidence/reasoning] · C2 [...] · ...
Implicit premises:   [unstated assumptions required]
Rhetorical frame:    [emotional/moral framing invited]
Intended audience:   [who and of what]

Only load-bearing claims warrant deep scrutiny.

---

Phase 2 — Formal Fallacies

Detected from structure alone. If the argument has this form, it is invalid regardless of conclusion.

Fallacy	Schema / Quick Test
Affirming the Consequent	If P then Q; Q; ∴ P. Q could be true for other reasons.
Denying the Antecedent	If P then Q; ¬P; ∴ ¬Q. Q could still hold.
Undistributed Middle	Shared term not universal in any premise.
Illicit Major/Minor	Term distributed in conclusion but not premise.
Affirming a Disjunct	Only valid for exclusive or.
Denying a Conjunct	¬(A∧B); ¬A; ∴ B — does not follow.
Four Terms	Syllogism with 4 terms (often via equivocation).
Existential Fallacy	Universal premises → particular existence claim.
Base Rate Neglect	Conditional probability without prior.
Conjunction Fallacy	P(A∧B) > P(A).
Masked-Man	Substituting co-referring terms in opaque contexts.
Non Sequitur	Catch-all when no specific formal fault applies.

Discipline: write the argument in standard form (premises above line, conclusion below). Inability to do so is itself a finding.

---

Phase 3 — Informal Fallacies

3a. Relevance

Fallacy	Signal
Ad Hominem (abusive / circumstantial / tu quoque)	Attack person, not argument
Guilt by Association	"This is what [unpopular group] also believes"
Poisoning the Well	Pre-emptively discredit arguer
Genetic Fallacy	Judge claim by origin, not content
Appeal to Authority (inappropriate)	Outside-domain or unnamed "experts say"
Ad Populum	"Many believe → true"
Appeal to Tradition / Novelty / Nature	"Always done", "new = better", "natural = good"
Appeal to Emotion (fear/pity/flattery/ridicule/spite)	Feeling substituted for reason
Appeal to Consequences	"If P were true, bad things follow → ¬P"
Appeal to Ignorance	"Not proven false → true" (or reverse)
Red Herring / Whataboutism	Irrelevant distraction; "but what about…"
Straw Man / Steelman Failure	Attack a weaker version
Two Wrongs Make a Right	"They did it first"

3b. Presumption

Fallacy	Signal
Begging the Question	Conclusion smuggled into premises
Circular Reasoning	A → B → C → A
Complex / Loaded Question	Question presupposes disputed claim
False Dilemma / Trilemma	Limited options when more exist
Suppressed Evidence / Cherry-Picking	Omit disconfirming data
No True Scotsman	Redefine category to exclude counterexample
Moving the Goalposts	Raise the bar each time it is met
Special Pleading	Universal rule, exception for own case
Sunk Cost	Continue because of past investment
Gambler's / Hot-Hand	Treat independent events as dependent

3c. Ambiguity

Equivocation · Amphiboly · Accent · Composition · Division · Reification · Scope Ambiguity. The key term's meaning shifts between premise and conclusion.

3d. Causation

Post hoc · Cum hoc · Reverse causation · Common cause ignored · Single-cause oversimplification · Regression fallacy · Texas sharpshooter · Slippery slope (without mechanism).

3e. Defective Induction

Hasty generalisation · Faulty/biased sample · Anecdotal evidence · Accident · Converse accident · Argument from incredulity · Argument from ignorance.

3f. Meta / Discourse

Fallacy Fallacy (bad argument for P ≠ ¬P) · Ad nauseam (repetition as proof) · Proof by verbosity · Gish Gallop · Kettle Logic · False Balance · Continuum · Nirvana · Moralistic · Naturalistic (is-ought) · Ad Baculum · Ipse Dixit.

---

Phase 4 — Cognitive Biases

Flag biases the text exploits or exhibits, not every bias in the literature.

4a. Belief-formation. Confirmation · disconfirmation · motivated reasoning · belief perseverance · backfire · Semmelweis reflex · illusory truth · bandwagon · authority · halo/horn · Dunning-Kruger · anchoring · availability · representativeness.

4b. Self-perception. Self-serving · actor-observer · fundamental attribution · naive realism · false consensus · third-person · illusion of control · overconfidence · bias blind spot.

4c. Memory (when text cites testimony). Hindsight · rosy retrospection · misinformation effect · source confusion · consistency · suggestibility.

4d. Social/group. In-group favouritism · out-group homogeneity · group attribution · groupthink · system justification · just-world · hostile attribution · stereotype reliance.

4e. Decision/framing. Loss aversion · endowment · status quo · framing · default · optimism/pessimism · planning · projection · hyperbolic discounting.

4f. Pattern-recognition. Apophenia/pareidolia · clustering illusion · illusory correlation · selection/survivorship · publication/reporting · observer-expectancy.

---

Phase 5 — Rhetoric & Propaganda

5a. IPA classical (1937). Name-calling · glittering generalities · transfer · testimonial · plain folks · card stacking · bandwagon.

5b. Contemporary.

Technique	Description
Firehose of falsehood	High-volume, multi-channel, inconsistent, rapid, repetitive — exhausts verification
Big Lie	Falsehood so large its scale becomes its credential
Gaslighting	Deny reader's perception of reality
DARVO	Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim & Offender
Whataboutism	Deflect via others' alleged faults
Sealioning	Endless polite questioning to exhaust
JAQing off	Smuggle accusation in interrogative form
Concern trolling	Faux-sympathetic undermining
FUD	Raise doubt to stall decisions
Motte-and-Bailey	Defend narrow (motte), advance broad (bailey)
Kafkatrap	Denial = proof of accusation
Galaxy-brained	Clever-looking chain to absurd conclusion
Dog Whistle	Innocuous surface, in-group signal
Framing / Agenda Setting	Pre-load conclusions via category/metaphor; control which questions are asked
Overton Window shift	Introduce extreme to normalise prior-extreme
Manufactured controversy	Settled question framed as open
False-humility ("reluctant conclusion")	"I didn't want to believe it, but…"

5c. Schopenhauer (recurring in live text). Extension (=straw man) · homonymy (=equivocation) · conceal your game · postulate what must be proved (=question-begging) · ad hominem when losing on substance · provoke anger · push opponent to overstate · claim victory regardless · last word.

---

Phase 6 — Statistical Manipulation

6a. Data. Cherry-picking · p-hacking · Texas sharpshooter · suppressed correlative · survivorship bias · selection bias · publication bias.

6b. Framing. Misleading averages · missing baseline/denominator · absolute-vs-relative-risk confusion · relative risk reduction presented as absolute risk reduction · odds/hazard/rate ratio presented as risk · percent-of-percent · truncated axes · arbitrary time windows · rate-vs-count substitution · false precision · composite indices with hidden weights · Goodhart's Law exploitation.

6c. Inference. Base-rate neglect · Simpson's Paradox (exploited) · ecological fallacy · atomistic fallacy · McNamara fallacy · ignored confounding · ignored reverse causation · causal direction asserted without temporal/design support · statistical-vs-practical significance · sampling-vs-systematic-error confusion.

6d. Source manipulation. Unnamed authority · single source amplified across many outlets (echo) · missing/buried COI · retracted studies cited as current · ellipsis quotes changing meaning.

---

Phase 7 — Linguistic Manipulation

7a. Weasel words. Numerically vague ("many", "up to", "leading") · agentless passive ("mistakes were made") · anonymous authority ("experts say") · hedging adverbs ("arguably", "reportedly") · first-person plural ("we all know"). Flag only when precision is available but avoided, or weasel is load-bearing.

7b. Loaded language. Positive/negative loaded terms · euphemism ("collateral damage") · dysphemism ("death tax") · emotive verbs ("slammed", "admitted") · scare quotes.

7c. Structural. Nominalisation (verb→noun hides agency) · agentless passive · presupposition smuggling ("when did you stop…") · leading/rhetorical questions · definitional rigging · jargon-as-smokescreen · false precision · appeal to "common sense".

7d. Framing test. Rewrite the same factual content with opposite framing. If the conclusion flips, the original frame is doing hidden argumentative work.

---

Phase 8 — Discourse-Structural

Gish Gallop · Motte-and-Bailey · Moving Goalposts · Sealioning · Bait-and-Switch (open reasonable, swap to stronger in conclusion) · Burying the Lede · Asymmetric Scrutiny · Isolated Demand for Rigour · Manufactured Urgency · False Balance · Preemptive Framing · Context Collapse · Narrative Lock-in.

---

Phase 9 — Severity

For each flag tag:

• Load-bearing (argument fails without it) / Supporting / Rhetorical flourish. Only load-bearing faults sink the argument.
• Severe / Moderate / Mild.
• Intentionality: consistent with / inconsistent with deliberate manipulation — never asserted. Signals: faults all pointing one direction; precision available but avoided; professional obligation to know better.
• Reader-impact: higher stakes of belief → lower tolerance for faults.

---

Phase 10 — Steelman & Repair

For each load-bearing flaw:

Original move:    [quote]
Fault:            [name + category]
Why fallacious:   [one-sentence explanation]
Steelman:         [strongest non-fallacious form of the same point]
Residual status:  [argument now succeeds / partly succeeds / collapses]

An argument that collapses under repair was being carried by the faults.

---

Phase 11 — Verification Checklist

• Every flag survives charitable reading
• Standards match the text's genre, not mismatched
• Every flag quotes a specific passage
• Named taxonomic category, not "bad reasoning"
• Explained why, not just labelled
• Load-bearingness assessed
• Steelman offered for each load-bearing flaw
• Self-audit: would I flag this as aggressively if conclusion ran the other way?
• Fallacy-fallacy avoided (argument unsound ≠ conclusion false)
• No double-counting

---

Output

# Fallacy & Bias Audit: [title / opening]

## Summary
- **Genre & register:** [formal / journalistic / political / marketing / scientific-pop / social / interpersonal]
- **Thesis:** [one-sentence central claim]
- **Verdict:** [one-line — argument stands / partly stands / collapses under repair]

## Argument Map
- **Load-bearing sub-claims:**

  | # | Claim | Evidence offered |
  |---|---|---|

- **Implicit premises:**
- **Rhetorical frame:**
- **Intended audience:**

## Findings

### Formal Fallacies
| Passage | Fault | Explanation | Load-bearing? |
|---|---|---|---|

### Informal Fallacies
| Passage | Family | Specific | Explanation | Load-bearing? |
|---|---|---|---|---|

### Cognitive Biases
| Passage | Bias | Mechanism | Load-bearing? |
|---|---|---|---|

### Rhetorical Techniques
| Passage | Technique | Effect |
|---|---|---|

### Statistical Manipulation
| Passage | Pattern | Correct interpretation |
|---|---|---|

### Linguistic Manipulation
| Passage | Pattern | Neutralised paraphrase |
|---|---|---|

### Discourse-Structural
| Passage/section | Pattern | Effect |
|---|---|---|

## Steelman Repair
[For each load-bearing flaw — non-fallacious version + whether argument survives]

## Residual Assessment
[Which sub-claims stand, which fall, which remain undecidable]

## Confidence & Severity
- **Load-bearing flaws:** [count + list]
- **Supporting / rhetorical flaws:** [counts]
- **Overall severity:** Severe / Moderate / Mild
- **Consistency with deliberate manipulation:** [+ reasoning — never asserted]

## What Would Change This
[Specific evidence, repair, or argument move that would flip the residual assessment]

## Sources & Warrants
[Include only when empirical evidence or outside sources were invoked.]

| Claim / finding supported | Source | URL | Access date | Publication date | Warrant | Funding / ownership / mandate / alignment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

## Self-Audit
- **Symmetry test:** Would I have reached the same verdict if the politically/socially expected answer ran the other way? If no — explain. If you can't tell — say so.
- **Fallacy-fallacy guard:** the argument being unsound does not make the conclusion false.
- **Priors named:** direction of analyst's own priors on the topic, stated.

## Limits of This Analysis
[Scope of text examined; passages or claims left unchecked; expertise / context limits]

---

Quick Reference

When you see…	Suspect…
"Everyone knows", "obvious that"	Ad populum, bare assertion
Unnamed "studies show", "experts say"	Anonymous authority, weasel
"If we allow X, next Y, then Z" (no mechanism)	Slippery slope
"You would say that, you're a [label]"	Ad hominem circumstantial
"My opponent thinks [absurd version]"	Straw man
"The real issue is…" mid-argument	Red herring
"But what about [other side]?"	Whataboutism
"Just asking questions"	JAQing off
Vivid anecdote → sweeping conclusion	Hasty generalisation / availability
"Since X, Y" (no mechanism)	Post hoc
"Natural" / "unnatural" load-bearing	Appeal to nature
Term seems to shift meaning	Equivocation
Only favourable examples	Cherry-picking
Percentage without denominator	Missing baseline
Relative reduction without absolute risk	Magnitude inflation
Odds/hazard/rate ratio called "risk"	Metric substitution
Cause asserted, reverse direction not checked	Directionality failure
Truncated y-axis	Graphical deception
"No true X would…"	No true Scotsman
Criterion changes after met	Moving goalposts
Claim → retreat → claim	Motte-and-Bailey
High-volume rapid claims	Gish gallop / firehose
"I didn't want to believe it, but…"	False-humility manipulation
Agentless passive carrying moral weight	Agency-hiding