Awesome Claude Prompts Unofficial

Critique an argument

Test an argument before you rely on it: its main claim, hidden assumptions, weak links and the strongest objection, with fixes.

Task: Critique an argument · Other tasks

Fill in the details

It can be your own draft or something you are reading. Paste the full text.

Optional. Tells Claude which weaknesses matter most for you.

Copy your prompt

This site doesn't run Claude or show model output. Results depend on your input and the model you use.

1 required field is empty.

What you type is kept in this tab's session storage so a reload doesn't lose it. Use "Clear this task" to remove it. Browsers can restore session data when they reopen tabs, so closing a tab isn't a guaranteed way to erase it.

When to use this template

  • You are about to rely on an argument, such as a proposal, a policy or an opinion piece, and want to see its weak points first.
  • You wrote an argument yourself and want to find the gaps before a reader does.
  • You need to prepare questions or a response and want the strongest objection stated clearly.

When not to use it

  • You need the facts in the argument checked. This template examines the reasoning; verifying claims needs sources.
  • You want Claude to take a side on a values question. The template judges reasoning, not whose values are right.
  • The text is a draft that needs editing for clarity, not testing. Use the edit-for-clarity template instead.

Why this structure

  • The argument comes first inside <argument> tags, which helps Claude keep the text being judged apart from the instructions about how to judge it.
  • Restating the main claim first checks that Claude read the argument the way it was meant before criticizing it.
  • Hidden assumptions get their own step, because they are often where an argument is weakest and the easiest part to miss.
  • Asking for a quote for each weak link ties every criticism to the text, so you can check it instead of taking it on trust.
  • The closing paragraph asks for fairness and for reasoning to be judged separately from agreement, so the critique is meant to be useful whichever side you are on.

Example input (fictional)

The argument
Our town (fictional) should close the old library branch. Visits fell last year, most people now read online, and the building needs repairs. Closing it would save money we can spend on the new sports center.
Why you are checking it
Preparing questions for a town hall meeting
Depth
The key problems only

Follow-ups to send Claude

  • Write the strongest version of this argument, fixing the weak links you found.
  • Which of the hidden assumptions would be easiest to check, and how?
  • Turn your critique into three questions I could ask the author.

Common mistakes

  • Pasting a summary instead of the original text. Weak links are often in the exact wording.
  • Reading the critique as a verdict on the conclusion. A badly argued claim can still be true, and a well argued one can still be wrong.
  • Skipping the "what it does well" part when sharing the critique. Feedback that starts with fair credit is more likely to be heard.
  • Compare options and recommend one: Weigh two or more options against your criteria and hard limits, see the trade-offs side by side, and get a recommendation when the facts support one.
  • Edit a draft for clarity: Make a draft clearer for a named reader while keeping your meaning and voice, with a short list of what changed and why.
  • Explain a concept: Get a concept explained at your level, in the format that helps you most, with a quick self-check and the common misconceptions.

See all templates

Sources