Milestone map
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
Resources
Foundationstart here
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
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
Resources
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
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
Resources
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