# Critical Reasoning And Argument

> Use when an output makes claims, explanations, interpretations, judgments, recommendations, forecasts, or persuasive conclusions that need explicit warrants, assumptions, countercases, and implications; use analytic-tradecraft for estimative or contested-evidence methods.

- Skill: `peterbamuhigire/critical-reasoning-and-argument` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 7 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add peterbamuhigire/critical-reasoning-and-argument`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/peterbamuhigire/critical-reasoning-and-argument/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: peterbamuhigire (https://skillmd.com/u/peterbamuhigire)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/peterbamuhigire/critical-reasoning-and-argument

---


# Critical Reasoning And Argument

<!-- dual-compat-start -->

This is the engine's universal thinking layer. It prevents the engine from merely collecting information and arranging it into plausible prose: every serious output must expose its question, terms, evidence, assumptions, inference chain, countercase, limits, and action implications.

## Use When

Use this skill for all forms of writing and reporting that contain a claim or conclusion: academic essays, theses, dissertations, literature reviews, systematic reviews, intelligence products, market analyses, history essays, business reports, proposals, board briefs, due diligence, policy analysis, legal argument, technical recommendations, and executive communication.

## Do Not Use When

- The task is purely formatting, file movement, or mechanical conversion.
- The output contains no claim, recommendation, interpretation, evaluation, forecast, or decision support.
- A domain skill already handles a narrow factual extraction and no conclusion is being drawn.

## Reasoning Intake Guidance

- The user's real question, decision, audience, and output type.
- Available sources, data, notes, or draft text.
- Known constraints, scope boundaries, definitions, and country or domain context.
- Any required confidence, citation, or evidence standard.

## Non-negotiable rule

No conclusion ships until it has passed the reasoning protocol in `references/reasoning-protocol.md`.

For research work, this skill operates after `source-evaluation`: source quality determines what can be used as evidence; this skill determines whether the evidence supports the conclusion. For intelligence or forward-looking work, run `analytic-tradecraft` after this skill to add probability language, hypothesis handling, and uncertainty discipline.

## Reasoning Method Detail

1. **Frame the real question.** Convert the prompt into a precise question the output must answer. If the prompt asks for "a report", infer the decision, controversy, interpretation, or action the report is meant to support.
2. **Define scope and terms.** Identify key terms, boundaries, jurisdiction, time period, population, market, method, or discipline. Flag ambiguous or loaded language.
3. **Separate the materials.** Distinguish facts, claims, assumptions, values, interpretations, inferences, recommendations, and unknowns.
4. **Map the argument.** Build the chain: main conclusion -> intermediate conclusions -> premises/evidence -> warrants/linking assumptions. Use the table in `references/reasoning-protocol.md`.
5. **Test evidence quality.** Apply `source-evaluation`; then ask whether the available evidence is relevant, sufficient, representative, current, and independent.
6. **Run the countercase.** State the strongest plausible objection, alternative explanation, rival hypothesis, or historiographical/market/technical counter-reading.
7. **Audit inference quality.** Test causal claims, generalisations, analogies, statistics, definitions, conditionals, necessity/sufficiency, and certainty calibration.
8. **Check coherence and fallacies.** Look for contradiction, circular reasoning, equivocation, straw-manning, false alternatives, hasty generalisation, post hoc causation, appeal to authority, appeal to majority, and unsupported value leaps.
9. **Choose the action form.** Route the tested reasoning into the right structure and tone using `references/audience-action-forms.md`.
10. **Run the serious-analysis overlay.** Use `references/essential-questions-mental-models-strategic-logic.md` when the output must show deeper thought, business sense, feasibility, strategic judgment, or problem-solving logic.
11. **Ship with limits.** State what the conclusion means, what it does not mean, confidence limits, operational implications, and next actions.

## Quality Standards

Every output using this skill must be:

- **Convincing:** the reader can see why the conclusion follows from the evidence.
- **Authentic:** the tone fits the institution, audience, discipline, and stakes; no generic filler or artificial certainty.
- **Realistic:** recommendations name constraints, tradeoffs, risks, time, cost, incentives, and implementation friction.
- **Actionable:** the reader knows what decision, interpretation, next step, or research move follows.
- **Proportionate:** claim strength matches evidence strength; uncertainty is not hidden.

## References

| Reference | Load when |
|---|---|
| `references/reasoning-protocol.md` | Always; universal argument map, inference tests, fallacy audit, and ship gate |
| `references/essential-questions-mental-models-strategic-logic.md` | High-stakes research, business analysis, proposals, plans, recommendations, strategy, design thinking, feasibility, and any output that must show serious analysis |
| `references/audience-action-forms.md` | Choosing structure, tone, and delivery form for academic, intelligence, market, history, business, policy, legal, technical, or executive outputs |
| `references/literature-review-and-thesis-hardening.md` | Academic writing, literature reviews, proposals, theses, dissertations, and postgraduate research design |
| `references/source-register.md` | Need provenance for the user-supplied books mined into this skill |

## Domain Routing

| Domain | Reasoning emphasis | Then call |
|---|---|---|
| Academic writing | Research question, literature gap, method justification, contribution, counter-literature | `academic-writing`, `academic-reporting-standards` |
| Literature review | Synthesis, theme formation, dispute mapping, gap logic, source quality | `academic-writing` |
| Intelligence report | Hypotheses, indicators, deception risk, probability and confidence separation | `analytic-tradecraft` |
| Market analysis | Decision criteria, segmentation logic, causal drivers, evidence currency, commercial implications | `business-writing`, `report-and-proposal-craft`, `executive-communication` |
| History essay | Chronology, causation, source limits, historiography, alternative interpretations | `academic-writing` |
| Business report/proposal | Finding-conclusion-recommendation separation, options, objections, risk, implementation | `report-and-proposal-craft` |
| Systems/process description | Boundary, actors, workflow, data, rules, requirements, scope, traceability, and change logic | `systems-process-requirements` |
| Executive brief | Governing thought, 3-5 tested reasons, implications, decision ask | `executive-communication` |
| Due diligence | Claim substantiation, red flags, downside cases, confirmatory tests | `due-diligence`, `analytic-tradecraft` |
| Policy/legal/technical argument | Definitions, authority, standards, burdens, feasibility, tradeoffs | relevant domain skill plus `source-evaluation` |

## Anti-Patterns

- Data dump with no conclusion or decision logic.
- Confident conclusion with no visible evidence-to-inference chain.
- Source summary pretending to be analysis.
- Annotated bibliography pretending to be a literature review.
- Recommendation without owner, timeline, cost, constraint, or risk.
- History narrative with chronology but no causation or interpretive argument.
- Market report with trends but no buyer, competitor, margin, regulation, or execution implication.
- Intelligence judgment that conflates source reliability with probability of the event.
- Academic argument that cites many sources but does not show the gap, method logic, or contribution.
- Counterargument dismissed by tone instead of defeated by evidence and reasoning.
- "It is clear that" language where evidence is partial, contested, stale, or indirect.

## Reasoning Deliverable Detail

- A precise core question and scope.
- Argument map for each load-bearing conclusion.
- Evidence, assumptions, warrants, countercase, limits, and implications.
- Calibrated conclusion or recommendation.
- Revision notes where the reasoning does not yet support the intended output.

## Universal Ship Gate

- [ ] Core question stated.
- [ ] Key terms and scope defined.
- [ ] Facts, assumptions, values, inferences, conclusions, and recommendations separated.
- [ ] Argument map completed for every load-bearing conclusion.
- [ ] Source quality checked through `source-evaluation`.
- [ ] Evidence relevance, sufficiency, representativeness, independence, and currency checked.
- [ ] Strongest objection or alternative explanation addressed.
- [ ] Essential questions, mental models, feasibility, and strategic-fit checks applied where stakes require them.
- [ ] Causal, analogical, statistical, generalisation, and definition claims audited where present.
- [ ] Fallacy/coherence audit completed.
- [ ] Certainty calibrated to evidence strength.
- [ ] Output form selected for audience and action.
- [ ] Limits, risks, implications, and next actions stated.

<!-- dual-compat-end -->

## Companion Skills

## Inputs

| Input | Source/provider | If absent |
|---|---|---|
| Claims, conclusion, audience, decision | Draft or brief | Stop and identify the proposition |
| Evidence, warrants, assumptions, countercases | Verified corpus and analyst | Mark missing support as a gap |

## Capability Contract

Critique defaults to read-only. Rewriting, publishing, operational decisions, or certifying correctness requires explicit authority.

## Degraded Mode

With incomplete evidence, return a qualified argument map and unresolved questions; do not convert plausibility into proof.

## Decision Rules

| Choice | Action | Failure/risk avoided |
|---|---|---|
| Claim lacks a warrant | Supply or remove it | Non sequitur |
| Strong countercase survives | Qualify conclusion | Overclaim |
| Evidence cannot discriminate | Preserve uncertainty | False resolution |

## Reasoning Scenario

A recommendation supported only by correlation is qualified until the causal warrant is established.

## Companion Skills

- `source-evaluation` - mandatory for source-backed research; establishes evidence discipline.
- `analytic-tradecraft` - intelligence, uncertainty, forecasts, contested evidence, and adversarial settings.
- `academic-writing` - academic form, originality, citation, synthesis, register, and source-away composition.
- `academic-reporting-standards` - thesis/dissertation examination standards and study-reporting checklists.
- `report-and-proposal-craft` - business reports, proposals, white papers, and formal research reports.
- `business-writing` - short-form professional prose.
- `executive-communication` - executive summaries, board briefs, and top-down communication.
- `research-design` - research questions, methods, and contribution logic.
- `research-techniques` - source mining, gap analysis, synthesis, and verification workflows.
- `systems-process-requirements` - systems, processes, workflows, requirements, scope, interfaces, data architecture, and design-system descriptions.

## Workflow

1. State the conclusion, audience, decision, and standard of proof.
2. Map claims to evidence, warrants, assumptions, countercases, and implications.
3. Stop when a load-bearing claim lacks a warrant or supporting evidence.
4. Recover by sourcing, qualifying, restructuring, or removing the failed claim before resuming.
5. Test the strongest countercase and calibrate the final conclusion.

## Outputs

| Artefact | Consumer | Acceptance condition |
|---|---|---|
| Argument map and qualified conclusion | Author, analyst, and decision-maker | Every load-bearing claim has evidence, warrant, assumptions, countercase treatment, and implication |

## Evidence Produced

| Evidence | Consumer | Acceptance condition |
|---|---|---|
| Claim-warrant-countercase register | Reviewer and downstream writer | Unsupported links and unresolved assumptions remain visible |

## Worked Example

A recommendation based only on correlation is qualified until a defensible causal warrant or explicitly limited decision rationale is supplied.