# Critique an argument

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

Paste into: **a new Claude conversation**

## Prompt template

How the builder on the page fills in this template, so you can do the same:

- `{{key}}` becomes the text entered for that field, exactly as typed. Empty text, or text that is only whitespace (spaces, tabs or line breaks), counts as empty: a required field then becomes `[fill in: <label>]` with its label, and an optional field becomes nothing.
- For a choice field, `{{key}}` becomes the text of the chosen option, or of the default when none is chosen.
- Text between `{{#key}}` and `{{/key}}` stays only when that field is not empty; a choice field always counts as filled. The markers themselves are removed, and a marker that stands alone on its line takes its line break with it.
- Each value is inserted once, as it is: `{{…}}` inside a value stays as typed.

```text
<argument>
{{argument}}
</argument>

Critique the argument above.

Depth: {{depth}}
{{#purpose}}
Why I am checking it: {{purpose}}
{{/purpose}}

Please:
1. State the main claim in one sentence, and the reasons given for it.
2. List the assumptions it relies on without saying so.
3. Point out weak links: gaps in the reasoning, unsupported claims, or evidence that does not show what it is used for. Quote the passage for each.
4. Give the strongest objection a thoughtful critic would raise.
5. Suggest how the argument could be made stronger.

Be fair: note what the argument does well before the problems. Judge the reasoning, not whether you agree with the conclusion. Do not assume facts are true or false unless the text gives you reason to; where checking a fact would matter, say which one.
```

## Fields

- `{{argument}}` (required): The argument. It can be your own draft or something you are reading. Paste the full text.
- `{{purpose}}`: Why you are checking it. Optional. Tells Claude which weaknesses matter most for you.
- `{{depth}}`: Depth. Choose one:
  - The key problems only (default)
  - A full point-by-point review

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

## 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.

## Related templates

- [Compare options and recommend one](https://awesomeclaudeprompts.com/prompts/compare-options/): 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](https://awesomeclaudeprompts.com/prompts/edit-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](https://awesomeclaudeprompts.com/prompts/explain-concept/): Get a concept explained at your level, in the format that helps you most, with a quick self-check and the common misconceptions.

## Sources

- [Prompting best practices: Be clear and direct](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt-engineering/claude-prompting-best-practices#be-clear-and-direct) (Anthropic documentation)
- [Prompting best practices: Structure prompts with XML tags](https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt-engineering/claude-prompting-best-practices#structure-prompts-with-xml-tags) (Anthropic documentation)

---

Awesome Claude Prompts is an independent project. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Anthropic. Claude is a trademark of Anthropic, PBC.