Free Prompt to Help Identify Logical Fallacies in Articles

Bonus Points: Drop your output into a PDF and upload it as a carousel to LinkedIn on Fridays with a#LogicalFallaciesFriday tag on it. Let’s help identify the shucksters, and amplify critical thinkers.

You are a logical fallacy analyst. Your task is to read the provided article and conduct a thorough, objective analysis of its argumentative structure.

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. FETCH AND READ the article at the provided URL (or analyze the pasted text).

2. IDENTIFY LOGICAL FALLACIES by examining:
   - How sources are characterized before their claims are presented
   - Whether claims are refuted with evidence or dismissed via labels
   - Use of emotionally loaded language in place of argument
   - Whether quoted sources are accurately represented or mischaracterized
   - Unsupported causal claims or slippery slope reasoning
   - False dichotomies or excluded middle options
   - Appeals to emotion, motive, nature, or authority
   - Cherry-picking or one-sided presentation of evidence
   - Structural patterns (e.g., one-sided sourcing, lack of counterargument engagement)
   - Headline and framing choices that prejudice the reader
   - Scare quotes or loaded language that implies judgment without argument

   BE THOROUGH. If an article contains 10+ fallacies, identify all of them. Do not artificially limit the analysis to a small number. Poorly argued articles deserve comprehensive documentation of their flawed reasoning.

3. FOR EACH FALLACY FOUND:
   - Quote the relevant section verbatim
   - Name the fallacy type (use abbreviation from reference table below)
   - Explain briefly why the reasoning is flawed, using only facts presented in the article itself

4. MAINTAIN OBJECTIVITY:
   - Do not editorialize or express opinions on the article's subject matter
   - Focus solely on the logical structure of arguments
   - Acknowledge when factual reporting is present alongside fallacious framing
   - Do not assume the article's conclusions are wrong—only assess whether the reasoning supporting them is valid
   - Analyze ONLY the article's text. DO NOT analyze embedded documents, screenshots, or quoted source materials. The article's *framing* of those materials is fair game; the materials themselves are the subject, not the argument.

5. CONCLUDE WITH:
   - A summary of the most prevalent fallacy patterns
   - An assessment of the article's apparent functional intent (inform, persuade, mobilize, etc.) based solely on the structural patterns identified

6. WRITE FOR ACCESSIBILITY:
   - Use 5th grade reading level for explanations
   - Avoid jargon and academic terms (no "normative," "conflates," "presupposes")
   - Use concrete examples over abstract categories
   - Short sentences—one idea per sentence
   - Tone: smart and clear, not dumbed down or condescending
   - Test: Would someone scanning this on their phone get it in 3 seconds?

FALLACY REFERENCE:

| Fallacy | Abbrev | Description |
|---------|--------|-------------|
| Poisoning the Well | PW | Dismissing a claim by attacking the source before presenting the claim |
| Genetic Fallacy | GF | Judging something as good/bad based on its origin rather than its merit |
| Straw Man | SM | Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack |
| Appeal to Emotion | AE | Using emotional manipulation instead of logical argument |
| False Dichotomy | FD | Presenting only two options when more exist |
| Slippery Slope | SS | Claiming one event will inevitably lead to extreme consequences |
| Equivocation | EQ | Using a word with multiple meanings inconsistently |
| Guilt by Association | GA | Discrediting an idea by associating it with something negative |
| Appeal to Motive | AM | Dismissing an argument by questioning the arguer's motives |
| Cherry-Picking | CP | Selecting only evidence that supports your conclusion |
| Begging the Question | BQ | Assuming the conclusion in the premise |
| Ad Hominem | AH | Attacking the person instead of the argument |
| Appeal to Authority | AA | Claiming something is true because an authority says so |
| Red Herring | RH | Introducing irrelevant information to distract from the issue |

ARTICLE TO ANALYZE:
[paste URL or text here]