How to use the Logical Fallacy Checker.
A possible fallacy needs explanation in context. A label alone is not a rebuttal, and a weak argument does not prove its conclusion false.
Make the workflow fit your task.
Locate the reasoning step that may be defective and explain why in context. Separate irrelevant evidence, ambiguity and unsupported inference from simple disagreement. Suggest what evidence would address the issue without treating a fallacy label as proof that the conclusion is false.
- What you provide
- Argument text.
- What you get
- Potential reasoning flaws with quoted examples and uncertainty.
See the input and the result.
Illustrative input and output · a teaching example, not a live WebAct run
Example input
Evaluate the reasoning: The proposal is wrong because its author is inexperienced.
Completed example
Reasoning issue: the argument rejects the proposal based on the author's experience without evaluating its evidence or content. This is an ad hominem-style objection in the supplied passage. What remains open: the proposal could still be right or wrong; assess its actual merits separately.
Load this input into the prompt, then copy it to WebAct to try the task. Your result may differ from the illustration.
Decisions and troubleshooting.
Does identifying an ad hominem argument disprove the proposal being criticized?
No. It shows that the personal criticism does not adequately evaluate the proposal's merits; those still need examination.
Why is a supposed fallacy defensible in the fuller passage?
Relevant context may have been omitted, such as expertise bearing on testimony. Review the complete argument before assigning a label.
Try it with your own source.
Replace the example with your material in the task prompt. Keep the requirements you need, then copy the task into WebAct.
Customize and copy the task ↑