👤 You paste the prompt and type: "Hi, I need help" 🤖 AI: "Hi! I'm Critical Thinking Expert. I teach you how to think clearly, spot weak arguments, and make better decisions. What should I call you?" 👤 You: "Sam" 🤖 AI: "Great to meet you, Sam! Would you like me to use web search during our session? This helps me get the latest info and verify concepts. (Yes/No)" 👤 You: "Yes" 🤖 AI: "Perfect! What would you like to learn about today? I can teach you: - How to spot weak arguments and logical mistakes - How to check if information is trustworthy - How to avoid common thinking traps (biases) - How to analyze what you read or hear - How to make better decisions - Or something else - just tell me!" 👤 You: "Teach me how to spot weak arguments" 🤖 AI: "Great choice, Sam! Let me teach you about spotting weak arguments. Let me find a recent example of this... [searches] According to recent political debates, this is common when discussing policy changes. Common weak arguments to watch for: 1. Only two choices (false dilemma) - "Either we do this OR everything fails" - but there are usually more options in between. 2. Attack the person (ad hominem) - Attacking the person making the argument instead of attacking their actual idea. 3. One thing leads to disaster (slippery slope) - "If we allow this, everything will go wrong!" but they give no proof that one leads to the other. 4. Expert says so (appeal to authority) - "An expert said it, so it must be true" but experts can be wrong or biased. Example: "My doctor friend says this diet works, so you should try it", this is appeal to authority. Your doctor friend might be right, but being a doctor doesn't make them a diet expert. Here's a practice exercise: Read this argument: "Either we ban all social media for kids under 16, or we're going to have a generation of anxious, depressed teenagers who can't function in society." Try this: What weak argument is being used here? What makes it weak? Take your time!" 👤 You: "It's the only two choices one? Like there could be other options between banning it completely and doing nothing" 🤖 AI: "Exactly right, Sam! 🎉 You spotted the false dilemma. What you got right: You identified that the argument presents only two extreme options (ban completely OR kids are ruined), when there are many middle options like: teaching kids healthy social media habits, limiting screen time, age-appropriate apps, parent controls, etc. Why it matters: When someone forces you to pick between two extremes, they're trying to rush your decision. Always ask yourself: "What other options exist that they're not mentioning?" Nice work, Sam! What would you like to do next? a) Practice this more with another exercise b) Learn a related skill c) Apply this to a real situation you're facing d) Keep talking about this topic (dig deeper) e) I'm done for now" 👤 You: "Practice more" 🤖 AI: "Perfect! Here's another one: Read this argument: "Everyone I know is voting for this candidate, so they must be the best choice for the job." Try this: What's the weak point in this argument? What assumption are they making? Take your time!" 👤 You: "Just because your friends are voting for them doesn't mean they're the best?" 🤖 AI: "Good thinking! You're on the right track. Let me add one more layer: What you got right: You spotted that "people I know" doesn't equal "best candidate", your friend group isn't the whole population. The specific weakness: This is called "appeal to popularity" (sometimes called bandwagon). The argument assumes that if many people believe something, it must be true. But truth isn't decided by popularity, lots of people can be wrong about the same thing. Better question to ask: "What are their actual qualifications and policies?" instead of "Who's voting for them?" Nice work, Sam! What would you like to do next? a) Practice this more with another exercise b) Learn a related skill (like how to check if sources are trustworthy) c) Apply this to a real situation you're facing d) Keep talking about this topic (dig deeper) e) I'm done for now" 👤 You: "Learn how to check if sources are trustworthy" 🤖 AI: "Great choice, Sam! This connects perfectly to what we just learned. The 5 Questions to Check If Information Is Trustworthy: 1. Who said it? - Are they qualified? Do they have a bias or reason to mislead? 2. What proof do they have? - Facts and studies, or just opinions? 3. When was this made? - Is it current or outdated? 4. Why did they say it? - To inform you or persuade you? Are they selling something? 5. Where else can I check? - Do other credible sources agree? Example: You see a headline "Coffee cures cancer!" from a blog. * Who? Random blog, not medical journal * What proof? No studies mentioned * When? No date * Why? Probably clickbait for ad revenue * Where else? No medical sources → Not trustworthy Here's a practice exercise: You see this claim: "A new study shows that reading before bed improves memory by 40%. Published by Sleep Research Institute last month." Try this: Walk through the 5 questions. What would you want to check before believing this? Take your time!" 👤 You: "I'd want to know: 1) Is Sleep Research Institute real and credible? 2) Can I see the actual study? 3) Does it say HOW they tested this? 4) Do other scientists agree? 5) Are they selling something related to sleep?" 🤖 AI: "Excellent work, Sam! 🎉 You applied all 5 questions like a pro. What you got right: ✓ You questioned the source (Sleep Research Institute) ✓ You wanted to see the actual study (not just a summary) ✓ You asked about methodology (how did they test it?) ✓ You wanted to check other sources (do others agree?) ✓ You looked for bias (are they selling something?) Why this matters: These exact questions help you avoid falling for fake studies, clickbait, and misleading claims. If something seems too good to be true (40% improvement!), run through these 5 questions. Extra tip: Real studies usually say things like "may improve" or "showed a 15-20% improvement in a small study. " Big, definite claims (40%! Cures cancer!) are red flags. Nice work, Sam! What would you like to do next? a) Practice this more with another exercise b) Learn a related skill (like avoiding thinking traps/biases) c) Apply this to a real situation you're facing d) Keep talking about this topic (dig deeper) e) I'm done for now" 👤 You: "I'm done for now" 🤖 AI: "Great session, Sam! Here's what you learned today: Spotting weak arguments: False dilemmas, attacks on people, appeals to authority The 5 source-checking questions: Who, What, When, Why, Where else How to apply them: You practiced on real examples Try using these this week when you read news, make decisions, or hear arguments. The more you practice, the better you'll get!" ---