# Argument Structure Mapper: Premises and Leaps

> Reusable prompt that maps a pasted argument into six sections, from stated conclusion to reconstruction test and retarget notes.

## Install

Copy the content below into your project:

# Argument Structure Mapper: Premises and Leaps

Reusable prompt that maps a pasted argument into six sections, from stated conclusion to reconstruction test and retarget notes.

## Start here

Paste one argument into an ordinary AI chat that accepts text, then paste the prompt text appended below. Supply the argument text plus one sentence stating the conclusion you think the author wants you to accept. Optionally add the audience or venue, and one named skeptic (for example, "a budget manager"). If the argument text or the conclusion is missing, the prompt is written to stop and ask for it rather than guess.

Check the output before using it:

| Check | What you look for |
|---|---|
| Conclusion | Marked "as supplied" or "inferred — confirm or correct" |
| Premises | Every listed premise can be found in your pasted text, with a location |
| Evidence | Each row traces to a numbered premise and says full, partial or does not reach |
| Leaps | Each leap names the premises it crosses between |
| Verdict | No sentence judging the argument true, good or convincing |

## Introduction

This is an original TokRepo prompt for structural reading. It does not summarize the piece and does not decide whether the author is right. It separates what the text actually puts forward as support, what evidence is attached to each claim, and where the argument jumps. The output ends with a short reconstruction test and, if you named a skeptic, the three gaps that reader would hit first.

## What you supply and what you get

Inputs: the argument text (essay, op-ed, memo, post, comment thread or transcript passage), a one-sentence conclusion, optional context about audience and venue, and an optional named skeptic. Six output sections follow in fixed order.

## Permissions and limitations

The prompt only works on the text you paste; it is asked not to add outside facts or counterarguments. It does not verify sources, check statistics or judge credibility, and it does not decide the argument's quality. Quotations are marked, ambiguity is labelled rather than resolved, and an inferred conclusion is flagged for you to confirm. Source reviewed; runtime not tested.

## FAQ

**What if I cannot state the conclusion?** Leave it blank. The prompt infers one and labels it "inferred — confirm or correct"; you then accept or rewrite that line before reading further.

**Does it tell me whether the argument is any good?** No. It returns structure only. The evidence ledger notes specificity and coverage, not trustworthiness, and no verdict sentence should appear. Deciding is your job.

**What about private or sensitive documents?** You paste the text into the chat you use, so the usual privacy rules of that service apply. Remove anything you would not want processed there.

## Attribution

Original TokRepo prompt, CC BY 4.0. Reference: [ChatGPT release notes](<https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6825453-chatgpt-release-notes>), reviewed 2026-10-04; the prompt does not depend on a specific announced feature. The complete prompt and its Chinese translation are appended by the publisher.

## Complete reusable prompt

# Argument Structure Mapper: Premises, Evidence, and Unsupported Leaps

You are helping me take apart a written argument so I can see exactly what it rests on. I will paste the argument below. You will not judge whether the author is right or wrong, and you will not rewrite the piece as a summary. Your job is structural: show me the building blocks and where the argument jumps.

## My input

I will paste:
1. **The argument text** — an essay, op-ed, memo, blog post, comment thread, or transcript passage. It may be well organized or messy.
2. **The conclusion** — I will state in one sentence what I believe the author wants me to accept. If I leave this blank, infer the conclusion and label it clearly as your inference.
3. **Context (optional)** — who the piece is written for, what publication or venue it comes from, and any stated purpose.
4. **My skeptic (optional)** — a type of reader I want the argument pressure-tested against, e.g. "a budget manager," "a first-year student," "a small business owner."

If any of items 1 or 2 is missing or too fragmentary to work with, stop and tell me what you need instead of guessing.

## What to produce

Return these six sections in order, using the exact headings below.

### 1. Stated Conclusion
One or two sentences restating the conclusion in neutral language. If I supplied the conclusion, mark it "as supplied." If you inferred it, mark it "inferred — confirm or correct." Do not add emphasis words like "bold" or "surprising."

### 2. Premise Inventory
A numbered table with these columns:
- **#** — premise number.
- **Premise as stated** — quote or closely paraphrase the supporting claim. Keep it to one sentence.
- **Location** — paragraph number, heading, or opening words so I can find it, e.g. "para 3, 'Most teams...'."
- **Type** — fact claim, value judgment, definition, causal claim, or prediction.
- **Role** — main support, secondary support, framing assumption, or rhetorical setup.

Include only what the text actually puts forward as support. Do not add premises the author would need but never wrote — those belong in Section 4.

### 3. Evidence Ledger
A table matching evidence to premises:
- **Premise #** — from Section 2.
- **Evidence offered** — what the author cites: study, anecdote, statistic, expert quote, personal experience, analogy, or nothing.
- **Specificity** — named source with date / named source without date / vague attribution ("many experts") / none.
- **Strength relative to the premise** — does this evidence, if taken at face value, actually support the whole premise or only part of it? Say "full," "partial," or "does not reach."
- **My verification note** — one line on what I would need to check to confirm it, e.g. "find the 2019 survey and read the sample size."

Do not evaluate whether the sources are trustworthy. Flag what is checkable and what is not.

### 4. Unsupported Leaps
List each inferential gap between the premises and the conclusion. For each one:
- **Leap #** — number.
- **From → to** — which premises lead to which claim.
- **What is missing** — the assumption, definition, or evidence that would have to be true for the step to hold.
- **Kind of gap** — hidden assumption, correlation-to-causation, sample-to-population, definition shift, missing counterexample, equivocation, or other.
- **How large** — "minor (easy to patch with one clause)," "moderate (needs a supporting source)," or "load-bearing (the conclusion collapses without it)."

Order leaps by how much weight they carry. Do not invent gaps in places where the author actually did the work.

### 5. Reconstruction Test
Rewrite the argument's skeleton in five steps or fewer, using only what survived Sections 2 through 4, and mark each surviving step with "stated" or "needs support." Then add one line: **What the argument proves if every leap holds** and one line: **What it proves if the load-bearing leaps fail.**

### 6. Retarget Notes
If I named a skeptic in the input, list the three gaps that reader would hit first, in their order, with one sentence on what evidence would answer each. If I named no skeptic, skip this section and write "no skeptic supplied."

## Rules

- Stay inside the supplied text. Never add outside facts, statistics, or counterarguments as if they were the author's.
- Quote sparingly; paraphrase by default. Mark every direct quotation with quotation marks.
- When the text is ambiguous, write "ambiguous — could read as X or Y" rather than picking one.
- Do not soften or sharpen the author's language. "Many people believe" is not the same as "most people believe."
- No overall verdict on whether the argument is good, true, or convincing. My job is to decide that.

## Worked example

**Fictional input (labelled):** A pasted 400-word post arguing that "remote work erodes team creativity," citing one company's internal survey, two anecdotes from a manager, and a line about "research showing isolation hurts ideas," with the conclusion that companies should mandate three office days.

**Needles output shape:** Section 2 lists premise 1 (the survey finding), premise 2 (the anecdotes), premise 3 (the isolation research line) with types and roles. Section 3 shows premise 3 as "vague attribution, no date, partial." Section 4 lists leap 1 (survey of one company → all teams, sample-to-population, moderate) and leap 2 (isolation harms ideas → office presence restores them, hidden assumption, load-bearing). Section 5 shows the skeleton with two "stated" steps and two "needs support" steps. Section 6, for a skeptic "a small business owner with no office," names the sample-size gap first.

## Before you finish, check

- [ ] Every premise in Section 2 appears in the pasted text.
- [ ] Every premise in Section 3 traces to a numbered premise in Section 2.
- [ ] Every leap names the premises it crosses between.
- [ ] No outside evidence was introduced anywhere.
- [ ] Section 5 uses only surviving material.
- [ ] No verdict sentence appears anywhere in the output.

## References and reuse

- [ChatGPT release notes](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6825453-chatgpt-release-notes) · Reviewed 2026-10-04

Original TokRepo prompt · [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Reference documents retain their own rights.

---

<!-- ZH -->

# 论证结构梳理：前提、证据与未支撑的跳跃

可复用提示词，将粘贴的论证拆为六个部分，从明示结论到重构检验与再瞄准说明。

## 开始使用

把一段论证粘贴进普通 AI 聊天窗口（能接受文本即可），再粘贴下方附带的提示词文本。除了论证正文，还要用一句话写出你认为作者想让你接受的结论。可选补充受众或发表场合，以及一个具体的质疑者（例如"预算主管"）。如果缺少论证正文或结论，提示词被设定为停下来询问，而不是猜测。

使用前检查输出：

| 检查项 | 你要看的内容 |
|---|---|
| 结论 | 标注为"按提供内容"或"推断——请确认或更正" |
| 前提 | 列出的每条前提都能在粘贴文本中找到，并给出位置 |
| 证据 | 每行都对应到编号前提，并写出"充分""部分"或"无法触及" |
| 跳跃 | 每次跳跃都写出它跨越了哪些前提 |
| 评判 | 没有任何句子判断该论证为真、好或有说服力 |

## 简介

这是 TokRepo 原创的结构化阅读提示词。它不总结文章，也不判断作者对错。它区分文本真正提出的支撑内容、每条主张附带的证据，以及论证发生跳跃的位置。输出最后给出简短的重构检验，如果你指定了质疑者，还会列出该读者最先遇到的三处缺口。

## 你要提供什么，会得到什么

输入包括：论证正文（文章、评论、备忘录、帖子、评论串或访谈段落）、一句话结论、可选的受众与场合背景、可选的具体质疑者。输出为固定顺序的六个部分。

## 权限与限制

该提示词只处理你粘贴的文本，并被要求不得加入外部事实或反驳。它不核实来源、不检查统计数字、不判断可信度，也不评判论证质量。引文会被标出，含糊之处标注而不替你定夺，推断出的结论会标记出来请你确认。来源已审阅；运行时未测试。

## 常见问题

**我写不出结论怎么办？** 留空即可。提示词会推断一个结论并标注"推断——请确认或更正"；你先接受或改写这一行，再继续往下看。

**它会告诉我这个论证好不好吗？** 不会。它只返回结构。证据台账记录的是具体程度和覆盖面，不是可信度，也不应出现任何评判句。判断由你来做。

**私密或敏感文件怎么办？** 文本要粘贴进你使用的聊天服务，因此适用该服务通常的隐私规则。请先删除你不希望在那里被处理的内容。

## 来源与致谢

TokRepo 原创提示词，CC BY 4.0。参考：[ChatGPT release notes](<https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6825453-chatgpt-release-notes>)，审阅于 2026-10-04；该提示词不依赖任何特定新发布功能。完整提示词及其中文翻译由发布方附上。

## 完整可复制提示词

# 论证结构图谱：前提、证据与无支撑跳跃

你正在帮我拆解一段书面论证，让我能确切看到它依靠什么。我会把论证粘贴在下面。你不要判断作者对错，也不要把文章改写成摘要。你的任务是结构性的：向我展示构件以及论证跳跃之处。

## 我的输入

我会粘贴：
1. **论证正文**——一篇文章、评论、备忘录、博客帖子、评论串或访谈段落。可能组织良好，也可能混乱。
2. **结论**——我会用一句话说明我认为作者想让我接受什么。如果我留空，请推断结论并清楚标注为你的推断。
3. **背景（可选）**——这篇文章写给谁、来自什么出版物或场合，以及任何声明的目的。
4. **我的质疑者（可选）**——我希望用来对论证进行压力测试的读者类型，例如"预算主管""大一学生""小企业主"。

如果第 1 项或第 2 项缺失，或过于零碎而无法处理，请停下并告诉我你需要什么，而不是猜测。

## 需要产出什么

按顺序返回以下六个部分，使用下面给出的确切标题。

### 1. 陈述的结论
用中性语言用一到两句话重述结论。如果我提供了结论，标记为"按提供内容"。如果你推断了结论，标记为"推断——请确认或更正"。不要添加"大胆"或"令人惊讶"之类的强调词。

### 2. 前提清单
一个带以下列的编号表格：
- **#**——前提编号。
- **Premise as stated**——引用或紧密转述支撑性主张。保持为一句话。
- **Location**——段落编号、标题或开头词语，以便我找到它，例如"para 3, 'Most teams...'"。
- **Type**——事实主张、价值判断、定义、因果主张或预测。
- **Role**——主要支撑、次要支撑、框架假设或修辞铺垫。

只包括文本实际提出的支撑内容。不要添加作者需要但从未写出的前提——那些属于第 4 部分。

### 3. 证据台账
一个将证据与前提对应的表格：
- **Premise #**——来自第 2 部分。
- **Evidence offered**——作者引用什么：研究、轶事、统计数字、专家引语、个人经验、类比或没有。
- **Specificity**——具名来源带日期／具名来源无日期／模糊归属（"许多专家"）／无。
- **Strength relative to the premise**——如果按表面价值接受，该证据是否实际支撑整个前提还是仅部分？写"full""partial"或"does not reach"。
- **My verification note**——一行说明我需要核对什么来确认它，例如"find the 2019 survey and read the sample size."

不要评价来源是否可信。标出哪些可核对、哪些不可核对。

### 4. 无支撑跳跃
列出前提与结论之间的每个推断缺口。对每个缺口：
- **Leap #**——编号。
- **From → to**——哪些前提导致哪个主张。
- **What is missing**——为使该步骤成立而必须为真的假设、定义或证据。
- **Kind of gap**——隐藏假设、相关到因果、样本到总体、定义转移、缺失反例、歧义或其他。
- **How large**——"minor (easy to patch with one clause)""moderate (needs a supporting source)"或"load-bearing (the conclusion collapses without it)"。

按权重排列跳跃。不要在作者实际做了工作的地方虚构缺口。

### 5. 重构检验
用不超过五步改写论证的骨架，只使用在第二部分至第四部分中留存下来的内容，并为每个留存步骤标注"已陈述"或"需要支撑"。然后添加一行：**如果每次跳跃都成立，该论证证明了什么**，再添加一行：**如果承重跳跃失败，它证明了什么。**

### 6. 重新定位说明
如果我在输入中指定了一个质疑者，按顺序列出该读者最先遇到的三处缺口，并用一句话说明什么证据可以回应每一处。如果我没有指定质疑者，跳过这一部分并写出"未提供质疑者"。

## 规则

- 停留在给定文本之内。绝不可添加外部事实、统计数字或反驳，就好像它们是作者本人的。
- 少用引文；默认转述。每一处直接引用都用引号标出。
- 当文本含糊时，写出"含糊——可读作 X 或 Y"，而不是二选一。
- 不要软化或锐化作者的语言。"许多人相信"不等于"大多数人相信"。
- 不对论证好不好、真不真或有说服力作出总体评判。我的任务是自行判断。

## 示例

**虚构输入（已标注）：** 一篇粘贴的 400 词帖子，主张"远程工作侵蚀团队创造力"，引用一家公司的内部调查、一位经理的两则轶事，以及一句关于"研究表明孤立会损害想法"的话，结论是公司应强制每周到办公室三天。

**Needles 输出形态：** 第二部分列出前提 1（调查发现）、前提 2（轶事）、前提 3（孤立研究那句话），并附类型与作用。第三部分把前提 3 显示为"模糊归属、无日期、部分"。第四部分列出跳跃 1（一家公司的调查 → 所有团队，从样本到总体，中等）和跳跃 2（孤立损害想法 → 到办公室能恢复它们，隐藏假设，承重）。第五部分显示骨架，包含两个"已陈述"步骤和两个"需要支撑"步骤。第六部分针对质疑者"没有办公室的小企业主"，把样本量缺口列在第一位。

## 完成前请检查

- [ ] 第二部分中的每条前提都出现在粘贴文本中。
- [ ] 第三部分中的每条前提都对应到第二部分中的一个编号前提。
- [ ] 每次跳跃都写出它跨越了哪些前提。
- [ ] 任何地方都没有引入外部证据。
- [ ] 第五部分只使用留存下来的材料。
- [ ] 输出中任何地方都没有评判句。

## 参考资料与复用

- [ChatGPT release notes](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6825453-chatgpt-release-notes) · Reviewed 2026-10-04

TokRepo 原创提示词 · [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)。参考资料保留各自原有权利。

---
Source: https://tokrepo.com/en/workflows/argument-structure-mapper-premises-leaps-fb885c1e
Author: Prompt Lab