agsk-argument-analysis

name	agsk - Argument Analysis
description	Analyze and construct arguments by checking logical validity, premise truth, hidden assumptions, and evidence strength.
output	{"format":"prose"}

AGSK - Argument Analysis

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Step 1: Identify the Claim

CLAIM: [the central assertion being made]
CLAIM TYPE: [empirical | normative | definitional | causal | predictive]
SCOPE: [universal | general | specific | particular]

If the input contains multiple claims, identify the primary claim and list secondary claims separately. Analyze the primary claim through the remaining steps.

---

Step 2: Identify the Premises

PREMISES:
  P1: [first supporting reason]
      STATUS: [stated explicitly | implied | reconstructed]
  P2: [second supporting reason]
      STATUS: [stated | implied | reconstructed]
  P3: [third supporting reason, if any]
      STATUS: [stated | implied | reconstructed]

Reconstruct the argument charitably. If a premise is implied but needed for the argument to work, include it and mark it as reconstructed.

---

Step 3: Check Logical Validity

ARGUMENT STRUCTURE:
  IF [P1] AND [P2] THEN [CLAIM]?
  VALID: [yes | no]
  FORM: [deductive | inductive | abductive | analogical]

If deductive: Do the premises guarantee the conclusion? If any premise is true and the conclusion could still be false, the argument is invalid.

If inductive: Do the premises make the conclusion probable? How probable?

If abductive: Is this the best explanation? What alternatives exist?

If analogical: How strong is the analogy? Where does it break?

---

Step 4: Check Premise Truth

For each premise:

P[N] ASSESSMENT:
  TRUTH: [true | false | uncertain | partially true]
  EVIDENCE FOR: [what supports this premise]
  EVIDENCE AGAINST: [what undermines this premise]
  VERDICT: [strong | adequate | weak | unsupported]

An argument can be logically valid but have false premises. Both checks are needed.

---

Step 5: Identify Hidden Assumptions

HIDDEN ASSUMPTIONS:
  A1: [assumption the argument requires but doesn't state]
      PLAUSIBILITY: [high | medium | low]
      IF FALSE: [what happens to the argument]
  A2: [another hidden assumption]
      PLAUSIBILITY: [high | medium | low]
      IF FALSE: [consequence for the argument]

Common hiding places: definitions taken for granted, causal mechanisms assumed, scope limitations unstated, value judgments embedded as facts.

---

Step 6: Assess Strength of Evidence

EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT:
  TOTAL EVIDENCE CITED: [count]
  TYPES: [anecdotal | statistical | expert | experimental | logical]
  STRONGEST PIECE: [which evidence and why]
  WEAKEST PIECE: [which evidence and why]
  MISSING EVIDENCE: [what evidence would strengthen or weaken the argument]
  OVERALL EVIDENCE QUALITY: [strong | adequate | weak | absent]

---

Step 7: Find the Strongest Objection

STRONGEST OBJECTION:
  OBJECTION: [the single best counterargument]
  TARGETS: [which premise, assumption, or logical step it attacks]
  FORCE: [devastating | significant | moderate | minor]
  POSSIBLE RESPONSE: [how the arguer might reply]
  RESPONSE QUALITY: [strong | adequate | weak]

The strongest objection is not necessarily the most obvious one. It attacks the weakest load-bearing element of the argument.

---

Step 8: Overall Assessment

ARGUMENT QUALITY
================
CLAIM: [restate]
VALIDITY: [valid | invalid | partially valid]
SOUNDNESS: [sound | unsound | uncertain]
EVIDENCE: [strong | adequate | weak]
STRONGEST POINT: [what the argument gets most right]
WEAKEST POINT: [where it's most vulnerable]
OVERALL GRADE: [compelling | reasonable | weak | fallacious]
VERDICT: [should the claim be accepted, rejected, or held pending more evidence?]

---

Failure Modes

Failure	Signal	Fix
Straw-manning	Weakening the argument before analyzing it	Reconstruct the strongest version first
Missing the real claim	Analyzing a subsidiary point	Ask: what is the arguer MOST committed to?
Validity-only checking	Ignoring premise truth	A valid argument with false premises proves nothing
Listing fallacies	Naming fallacies without explaining impact	Show HOW the fallacy undermines the specific argument
No strongest objection	Only finding minor issues	What would make a smart proponent of this argument worry?

---

Integration

• Use with: /rlsk to analyze arguments occurring within relationships
• Use with: /cmpr to check if the argument is complete
• Use with: /difr to differentiate this argument from similar ones
• Use from: /claim when testing a specific claim's argument structure
• Differs from /ht: agsk analyzes argument structure; ht tests hypotheses empirically