Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Reconstruct a real published argument in standard form
4 weeks
Select a real published argument from a philosophy paper, a published policy position, a Supreme Court or appellate decision, or a major editorial — any source where a real author makes an argument with premises and a conclusion. Reconstruct the argument in standard form: identify all premises (stated and implicit), state the conclusion, identify the argument's form (deductive, inductive, abductive), and assess validity and soundness. The implicit premises must be made explicit — not just the stated ones.
Proof required
Argument reconstruction document (500+ words) identifying the real source with citation, presenting the argument in standard form (premises numbered, conclusion stated), identifying argument form, assessing validity and soundness separately, and explaining the most important implicit premise.
What gets checked
- Source is a real published argument — not a constructed example
- Implicit premises are made explicit — not just the stated premises
- Validity and soundness are assessed separately — the argument may be valid but unsound, or invalid regardless of premise truth
Common mistakes
- Choosing an argument that is already presented in standard form — the challenge is identifying premises in natural language, not re-presenting a logic textbook example
- Not distinguishing validity from soundness — an argument can be logically valid (conclusion follows from premises) while being unsound (premises are false)
- Missing the most important implicit premise — real arguments depend on assumptions that are not stated and that the author may not acknowledge
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Verify the source is a real published argument — request the citation
- Review the standard form — confirm at least one implicit premise is explicitly identified
- Check validity and soundness assessments — confirm they are made separately
Evaluate fallacies and produce a charitable reconstruction
3 weeks
Evaluate the M1 argument for logical fallacies (formal and informal): identify any present, name them specifically, and explain why each is a fallacy in this argument (not just a general definition). Then produce the strongest charitable reconstruction — the version of the argument that is logically valid or inductively strong, with the most defensible premises, even if this requires revising the original. A charitable reconstruction does not agree with the argument; it represents the best possible version of it.
Proof required
Fallacy evaluation document (400+ words) identifying any fallacies with specific names and explanations of why they are fallacies in this context, plus a charitable reconstruction with explicit statement of which premises were revised and why.
What gets checked
- Fallacies are named specifically with explanations tied to this argument — not generic definitions
- Charitable reconstruction is stated in standard form with explicit statements of what was revised
- Charitable reconstruction is genuinely the strongest version — not a slightly edited copy of the original
Common mistakes
- Calling everything a fallacy without specific justification — not every weak argument contains a formal or informal fallacy
- Producing a charitable reconstruction that is not actually valid or strong — the point is to find the best version, which may require significantly different premises
- Using informal fallacy labels (ad hominem, straw man) without explaining why the fallacy applies in this specific argument
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Review fallacy identifications — confirm each is named specifically and tied to this argument's context
- Check the charitable reconstruction — confirm it is stated in standard form with explicit revision notes
- Verify the charitable reconstruction is genuinely stronger than the original — ask the candidate to explain one specific improvement
Defend reconstruction and evaluation under philosopher challenge
1 week
Present the argument reconstruction and evaluation to a philosopher or logician for a Q&A challenge. The reviewer must probe specific reconstruction choices — 'you've identified this as an implicit premise, but couldn't the argument work without it?', 'you claim this is a straw man fallacy — hasn't the original author addressed this objection elsewhere?', 'your charitable reconstruction introduces a premise the original author would reject — is it still the same argument?'. Document the challenges and your responses. This Q&A satisfies the ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE.
Proof required
Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's philosophy background, at least three specific challenges to the reconstruction or evaluation, your responses, and any revisions committed to based on the session.
What gets checked
- Reviewer has philosophy training or teaches logic or philosophy of argument
- At least three specific reconstruction or evaluation challenges are documented
- At least one revision is committed to based on the session
Common mistakes
- Presenting to someone who validates the analysis rather than challenging it — the Q&A must probe the specific reconstruction decisions
- Not being able to justify an implicit premise identification under challenge — premise identification is the most contestable part of argument reconstruction
- Treating the charitable reconstruction as sacrosanct — if the reviewer identifies a stronger charitable version, the candidate should be willing to revise
Resources
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm the reviewer has philosophy training or teaches logic
- Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three specific reconstruction challenges are documented
- Check that at least one revision is committed to based on the session