Skills

Logic and Critical Reasoning Applied

6 weeks · 0 milestones

Identify and formally document logical fallacies or reasoning errors in a real public argument — a named political speech, named media editorial, named policy document, or named public figure's published statement (named and dateable). For each reasoning error identified: name the fallacy or error type, quote the specific passage from the text, and explain why that passage commits the error and what a valid version of the argument would look like. Proof is your analysis plus a documented challenge from a logician or philosophy academic who contests at least one of your identifications — specifically, whether it is genuinely a fallacy or a rhetorical move that can be reconstructed as a valid argument. Your written defence of your classification is a required part of the proof.

Part of: Social Sciences, Law & Humanities · Proves for: UG

Milestone map

3 milestones

Analyse formal and informal logic in real everyday arguments

4 weeks

Collect three to five real arguments from public discourse — newspaper editorials, political speeches, advertiser claims, social media debates — and apply formal and informal logic analysis to each. For each: identify the logical form (deductive, inductive, abductive), identify any formal fallacies, identify any informal fallacies with explanations tied to the specific argument, and produce a validity/strength assessment. Use real publicly accessible sources.

Proof required

Logic analysis document (600+ words) covering three to five real arguments from cited public sources, each with: logical form identified, formal and informal fallacies identified (or explicitly stated as absent) with specific explanations, and a validity/strength assessment.

What gets checked

Arguments are from real publicly accessible sources with citations
Fallacy identifications are tied to the specific argument — not generic definitions
Validity and strength assessments are made separately and appropriate to the argument type

Common mistakes

Naming informal fallacies without explaining why they apply to this specific argument
Treating inductive arguments as if validity binary applies — strong/weak/cogent applies to inductive reasoning
Not distinguishing formal from informal fallacies — they are different types of logical failure

Powstik Guide

A 600-word logic analysis of three to five real arguments.

Steps

Pick arguments from cited public sources.
Put each in standard form.
Name any fallacy precisely.
Say how to repair it.

Template

| Argument (source) | Form | Fallacy | Repair |
|-------------------|------|---------|--------|

What gets sent back

Under 600 words.
Sources uncited.
Hypothetical instead of real.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Verify arguments are from real public sources — check at least one citation
Review fallacy identifications — confirm explanations are tied to the specific argument
Check validity/strength assessments — confirm they are appropriate to the argument type

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Construct an original argument that withstands logic analysis

3 weeks

Construct an original argument: lay out the premises, state the conclusion, and make the logical form explicit. Perform self-critical logic analysis — identify at least two weaknesses, apply the principle of charity to the strongest counter-argument, and explain how the argument withstands it. A logically rigorous argument with acknowledged limitations is the goal, not a perfect one.

Proof required

Original argument document (500+ words) in standard form (premises + conclusion), identifying logical form, self-critical analysis noting at least two specific weaknesses, charitable application to the strongest counter-argument, and explanation of how the argument withstands it.

What gets checked

Argument is in standard form with explicit premises and conclusion
Self-criticism identifies at least two specific weaknesses — not just 'some people may disagree'
Principle of charity is applied to the strongest counter-argument, not a straw man

Common mistakes

Presenting a persuasive argument without logical form analysis — persuasion and logical validity are different things
Self-criticism that only lists generic weaknesses rather than specific logical problems
Applying principle of charity to a weaker counter-argument while avoiding the strongest

Powstik Guide

An original argument in standard form that survives critique.

Steps

Write numbered premises and a conclusion.
Name the logical form you're using.
Find two specific logical weaknesses.
Take the strongest counter-argument charitably.
Show how your argument answers it.

Template

P1:
P2:
P3:
C:
Logical form:
Weakness 1:
Weakness 2:
Strongest counter-argument:
My answer:

What gets sent back

A persuasive essay with no logical form.
Generic weaknesses.
A weak counter-argument chosen.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Review standard form — confirm premises and conclusion are explicitly stated
Check self-criticism — confirm at least two specific logical weaknesses are identified
Review counter-argument application — confirm it is the strongest, not a weak, counter-argument

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Defend logic analysis and argument construction under philosopher challenge

1 week

Present both the M1 analysis and M2 original argument to a philosopher or logician for a Q&A. The reviewer must probe specific logic decisions — 'you say this is a valid argument but premise 2 is false — what's the value of a valid but unsound argument?', 'you identified this as a slippery slope fallacy but isn't this a legitimate causal chain?'. This Q&A satisfies the ADVERSARIAL VERIFICATION RULE.

Proof required

Q&A notes (250+ words) documenting the reviewer's philosophy or logic background, at least three specific challenges including at least one on the original argument, responses, and any revisions committed to.

What gets checked

Reviewer has philosophy or logic training
At least three specific challenges are documented — including at least one on the original argument
At least one revision is committed to based on the session

Common mistakes

Reviewer only validates without probing — the validity/soundness distinction must be challenged in any real logic review
Not being able to explain why a formal fallacy applies under challenge
No revisions after a genuine logic challenge

Powstik Guide

Your logic work, challenged by a philosopher or logician.

Steps

Separate validity from soundness for each argument.
Prepare why each fallacy you named applies.
Book a philosopher or logician.
Ask for three challenges, one on your own argument.

Template

Challenge session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (validity, soundness or a fallacy):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

Update I am committing to:

What gets sent back

A reviewer who only validates.
A fallacy you can't explain.
No revision after the session.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Confirm reviewer has philosophy or logic training
Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three challenges including one on the original argument
Check that at least one revision is committed to

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Part of

Philosophy & Critical Thinking →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Analyse formal and informal logic in real everyday arguments

4 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Arguments are from real publicly accessible sources with citations
Fallacy identifications are tied to the specific argument — not generic definitions
Validity and strength assessments are made separately and appropriate to the argument type

Common mistakes

Naming informal fallacies without explaining why they apply to this specific argument
Treating inductive arguments as if validity binary applies — strong/weak/cogent applies to inductive reasoning
Not distinguishing formal from informal fallacies — they are different types of logical failure

Powstik Guide

A 600-word logic analysis of three to five real arguments.

Steps

Pick arguments from cited public sources.
Put each in standard form.
Name any fallacy precisely.
Say how to repair it.

Template

| Argument (source) | Form | Fallacy | Repair |
|-------------------|------|---------|--------|

What gets sent back

Under 600 words.
Sources uncited.
Hypothetical instead of real.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Verify arguments are from real public sources — check at least one citation
Review fallacy identifications — confirm explanations are tied to the specific argument
Check validity/strength assessments — confirm they are appropriate to the argument type

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Construct an original argument that withstands logic analysis

3 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Argument is in standard form with explicit premises and conclusion
Self-criticism identifies at least two specific weaknesses — not just 'some people may disagree'
Principle of charity is applied to the strongest counter-argument, not a straw man

Common mistakes

Presenting a persuasive argument without logical form analysis — persuasion and logical validity are different things
Self-criticism that only lists generic weaknesses rather than specific logical problems
Applying principle of charity to a weaker counter-argument while avoiding the strongest

Powstik Guide

An original argument in standard form that survives critique.

Steps

Write numbered premises and a conclusion.
Name the logical form you're using.
Find two specific logical weaknesses.
Take the strongest counter-argument charitably.
Show how your argument answers it.

Template

P1:
P2:
P3:
C:
Logical form:
Weakness 1:
Weakness 2:
Strongest counter-argument:
My answer:

What gets sent back

A persuasive essay with no logical form.
Generic weaknesses.
A weak counter-argument chosen.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Review standard form — confirm premises and conclusion are explicitly stated
Check self-criticism — confirm at least two specific logical weaknesses are identified
Review counter-argument application — confirm it is the strongest, not a weak, counter-argument

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Defend logic analysis and argument construction under philosopher challenge

1 week

Proof required

What gets checked

Reviewer has philosophy or logic training
At least three specific challenges are documented — including at least one on the original argument
At least one revision is committed to based on the session

Common mistakes

Reviewer only validates without probing — the validity/soundness distinction must be challenged in any real logic review
Not being able to explain why a formal fallacy applies under challenge
No revisions after a genuine logic challenge

Powstik Guide

Your logic work, challenged by a philosopher or logician.

Steps

Separate validity from soundness for each argument.
Prepare why each fallacy you named applies.
Book a philosopher or logician.
Ask for three challenges, one on your own argument.

Template

Challenge session log
Date:            Duration:
Reviewer name:
Reviewer role and credentials:

Challenge 1 (validity, soundness or a fallacy):
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 2:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?
Challenge 3:
  What they asked:
  My answer:
  Did it hold?

Update I am committing to:

What gets sent back

A reviewer who only validates.
A fallacy you can't explain.
No revision after the session.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Confirm reviewer has philosophy or logic training
Review Q&A notes — confirm at least three challenges including one on the original argument
Check that at least one revision is committed to

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.