Agent Skills: Find Fallacies

Analyze text for logical fallacies. Use when reviewing arguments, debates, articles, or reasoning that may contain flawed logic.

UncategorizedID: nweii/agent-stuff/find-fallacies

Install this agent skill to your local

pnpm dlx add-skill https://github.com/nweii/agent-stuff/tree/HEAD/skills/find-fallacies

Skill Files

Browse the full folder contents for find-fallacies.

Download Skill

Loading file tree…

skills/find-fallacies/SKILL.md

Skill Metadata

Name
find-fallacies
Description
"Analyze text for logical fallacies. Use when reviewing arguments, debates, articles, or reasoning that may contain flawed logic."

Find Fallacies

Analyze the provided text and identify any logical fallacies present. For each fallacy found, explain:

  1. The fallacy name and type
  2. Where it appears in the text
  3. Why it's fallacious (brief explanation)

Fallacy Reference

Formal Fallacies

Errors in logical form.

  • Appeal to probability — Taking something for granted because it would probably be the case
  • Argument from fallacy — Assuming fallacious argument means false conclusion
  • Base rate fallacy — Ignoring prior probabilities in conditional reasoning
  • Conjunction fallacy — Multiple conditions seem more probable than single condition
  • Non sequitur — Conclusion doesn't follow premise
  • Affirming the consequent — if A then B; B, therefore A
  • Denying the antecedent — if A then B; not A, therefore not B
  • Modal fallacy — Confusing necessity with sufficiency

Informal Fallacies

Improper Premise

  • Begging the question — Using conclusion to support itself
  • Circular reasoning — Beginning with what you're trying to prove
  • Loaded question — Question presupposes something unproven

Faulty Generalizations

  • Cherry picking — Using only confirming data
  • Survivorship bias — Focusing on successes, ignoring failures
  • Hasty generalization — Broad conclusion from small sample
  • No true Scotsman — Redefining to exclude counterexamples
  • False analogy — Poorly suited comparison

Questionable Cause

  • Correlation implies causation — Assuming correlation means cause
  • Post hoc ergo propter hoc — After this, therefore because of this
  • Single cause fallacy — Assuming one cause when multiple exist
  • Regression fallacy — Failing to account for natural fluctuations

Relevance Fallacies

  • Appeal to the stone — Dismissing as absurd without proof
  • Argument from ignorance — Not proven false = true (or vice versa)
  • Argument from incredulity — Can't imagine it, so must be false
  • Red herring — Introducing irrelevant topic

Ad Hominem Variants

  • Ad hominem — Attacking arguer instead of argument
  • Circumstantial ad hominem — Dismissing due to perceived benefit
  • Poisoning the well — Discrediting source preemptively
  • Appeal to motive — Dismissing based on assumed motives
  • Tu quoque — "You do it too"
  • Tone policing — Focusing on emotion over substance

Appeals

  • Appeal to authority — True because authority says so
  • Appeal to emotion — Manipulating feelings over reasoning
  • Appeal to nature — Natural = good
  • Appeal to tradition — True because long held
  • Appeal to popularity — True because many believe it
  • Appeal to consequences — True because of desired outcomes

Other Common Fallacies

  • Straw man — Refuting a different argument than presented
  • False dilemma — Only two options when more exist
  • False equivalence — Treating unequal things as equal
  • Slippery slope — Small step leads inevitably to disaster
  • Moving the goalposts — Demanding more evidence when some provided
  • Nirvana fallacy — Rejecting imperfect solutions
  • Motte-and-bailey — Defending modest claim when challenged on bold one
  • Special pleading — Claiming exemption without justification
  • Whataboutism — Deflecting by pointing to other wrongs
  • Kafkatrapping — Denial as evidence of guilt

Output Format

Present findings as:

FALLACIES

  • Fallacy Name: Fallacy Type — Brief explanation of where and why it appears.

If no fallacies are found, say so and note any areas where the reasoning is sound or where claims are well-supported.