synapseradio Follow these steps:
1. Identify the claim
Target: $ARGUMENTS, else the claim in the current context.
2. Identify the conditional structure
Locate the underlying "if P then Q". It often hides in causal language ("X causes Y"), categorical statements ("all X are Y"), or implied relationships ("X means Y"). Make the conditional explicit.
3. Form the contrapositive
Negate both parts and reverse them: "if not-Q then not-P". This is logically equivalent to the original.
4. Compare verification difficulty
Which form is easier to test against evidence? The original may require proving something exists; the contrapositive, that something is absent. One direction often reveals clearer evidence paths.
5. Surface hidden assumptions
Notice what the contrapositive makes explicit that the original obscured: unstated prerequisites, whether the claim is weaker than it appeared.
6. Test both directions
Examine evidence for both forms. If the contrapositive is obviously false, the original is too — often a faster path to flawed reasoning.