Stress-test an argument or persuasive piece

Find the weak points in your reasoning: gaps, unsupported claims, counterarguments and how to repair each.

Change note: Initial version

Prompt

Review the argument below like a sharp, fair critic who wants it to succeed.

The argument or piece:
{{argument}}

Who needs to be convinced: {{audience}}
What they currently believe: {{audience_belief}}
How rigorous to be: {{rigor}}

Assess and report on:
1. The core claim, restated in one sentence, and whether it matches what I seem to intend.
2. Each key premise, marked as supported, plausible but unsupported, or doubtful.
3. Logical gaps or leaps, including any fallacies (name them, quote the line).
4. The three strongest objections this audience would raise, ranked by how damaging they are.
5. Evidence I should add, specifically what kind and where it would go.
6. What the piece does well and should keep.

Rules:
- Quote the lines you are critiquing. Be specific and concise.
- Do not invent facts or studies. If you suggest evidence, describe the type, not fake citations.
- Do not argue the opposite position for its own sake; focus on making this argument stronger.

Output format: use the six numbered headings, then a prioritized repair list of at most five steps.

Variables

• {{argument}}Your argumentlong

  Default: Cities should ban cars from downtown centers. Cars cause pollution and noise. Cities like Oslo have done similar things and are better for it. Shops will do better because more people walk. The only people opposed are those who don't care about the environment.

  Paste the text

• {{audience}}Audiencetext

  Default: City councillors and local business owners

• {{audience_belief}}Their current viewtext

  Default: Skeptical; worried about lost customers

• {{rigor}}Rigorselect

  Options: Quick pass, Thorough, Ruthless

  Default: Thorough

Example output

1. Core claim
Cities should ban cars from downtown centers because it improves environment and commerce.

2. Premises
- Cars cause pollution and noise: supported (widely accepted).
- Oslo's experience proves success: plausible but unsupported; no outcome data given.
- Shops do better with more walkers: doubtful for this audience; unsupported.

3. Gaps
- "The only people opposed are those who don't care about the environment" is a straw man; it dismisses real concerns about deliveries and access.

4. Likely objections
1. Loss of customers who drive in.
2. Delivery and disability access.
3. Oslo's context differs from ours.

5. Evidence to add
Retail sales data from pedestrianised streets, with before/after comparisons.

6. Keep
A clear position and a concrete example.

Repair list: replace the straw man, add sales evidence, address access.

Notes

Naming the audience's current belief matters: the best objections come from their point of view. Run it again after revising to see if issues are fixed.