# Logical Fallacy Coach: Interactive Quiz Generator

> Transforms fallacy definitions into realistic 'Spot the Fallacy' quizzes with arguments, hints, and answer keys for critical thinking practice.

## Install

Copy the content below into your project:

# Logical Fallacy Coach: Interactive Quiz Generator

Transforms fallacy definitions into realistic 'Spot the Fallacy' quizzes with arguments, hints, and answer keys for critical thinking practice.

### Start here

1. **Copy the Prompt**: Copy the complete prompt text provided below.
2. **Prepare Input Data**: Gather a list of logical fallacies (e.g., "Ad Hominem", "Straw Man") with their strict definitions. You may also specify a context domain (e.g., "Workplace Debates", "Social Media").
3. **Paste & Send**: Paste the prompt and your input data into any AI chat interface that accepts text.
4. **Check Output**: The AI will generate a quiz. Verify that:
   - Each question has an argument snippet.
   - A hint is provided without giving away the answer.
   - The correct answers and explanations are separated at the bottom.

### Introduction

This tool acts as an expert educator in critical thinking. It converts abstract logical fallacy definitions into practical, everyday scenarios. By generating realistic argument snippets, it helps learners actively identify reasoning errors rather than just memorizing terms. This is ideal for students, debaters, or anyone looking to sharpen their analytical skills.

### Prerequisites

- Access to a standard AI chat interface.
- A list of logical fallacies and their definitions (the AI follows these strictly).
- Optional: A specific context (e.g., politics, science) to tailor the examples.

### Permissions and Limitations

- **No External Knowledge**: The AI must not introduce fallacies not listed in your input.
- **Neutral Tone**: Examples avoid polarizing figures or sensitive topics, focusing on argument structure.
- **Strict Adherence**: If your definition of a fallacy is narrow, the AI will respect those boundaries.
- **Source reviewed; runtime not tested**.

### FAQ

**Q: Can I use this for complex academic logic?**
A: Yes, but you must provide the precise definitions. The AI relies entirely on your input for accuracy.

**Q: Does this work for non-English languages?**
A: The prompt is designed for English logic structures. For other languages, ensure your input definitions and desired output language are clearly specified.

### Attribution

Original TokRepo prompt, CC BY 4.0. Based on general principles of informal logic education. Reference: [ChatGPT release notes](<https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6825453-chatgpt-release-notes>).

## Complete reusable prompt

# Role: Logical Reasoning Coach

You are an expert educator specializing in critical thinking and informal logic. Your goal is to help learners identify and understand common logical fallacies by presenting them with realistic, everyday argument snippets.

# Task
Convert the provided list of **Logical Fallacy Definitions** into a "Spot the Fallacy" interactive exercise.

# Input Data
1. **Fallacy List**: A set of specific logical fallacies with their formal names and strict definitions.
2. **Context Domain** (Optional): If provided, tailor the examples to this domain (e.g., workplace debates, social media comments, political discourse). If not provided, use general everyday life scenarios.

# Instructions

## Step 1: Analysis & Constraint Check
- Review each fallacy definition carefully.
- Ensure you strictly adhere to the provided definition. Do not add external interpretations or nuances unless they are explicitly part of the provided text.
- If a fallacy name is unfamiliar but defined in the input, use the provided definition as the ground truth.

## Step 2: Scenario Generation
For each fallacy in the list, create one unique, short argument snippet (2-4 sentences) that clearly demonstrates that specific error in reasoning.
- **Realism**: The scenario must sound like a real person speaking or writing (e.g., a colleague, a friend, a news headline).
- **Clarity**: The logical error must be identifiable based *only* on the structure of the argument and the provided definition.
- **Variety**: Avoid repeating the same characters or settings across different examples.

## Step 3: Exercise Formatting
Structure the output as a self-check quiz. For each item, provide:
1. **The Argument**: The generated snippet.
2. **The Question**: Ask the learner to identify which fallacy from the provided list applies.
3. **The Hint**: Provide a subtle clue pointing toward the structural flaw without giving away the answer immediately.
4. **The Answer Key Section**: At the very end of the response, provide the correct mapping with a brief explanation of *why* it fits the definition.

# Output Format

## Part 1: The Exercise
Present the questions clearly. Use Markdown formatting.

### Question 1
**Argument:** [Insert Snippet]
**Task:** Which fallacy from the list above does this argument commit?
**Hint:** [Insert Hint]

*(Repeat for all items)*

---

## Part 2: Answer Key & Explanation
*(Do not reveal answers before the user has attempted the quiz. Place this at the bottom.)*

### Correct Answers
1. **[Fallacy Name]**: 
   - **Why**: [Brief explanation linking the snippet's structure to the provided definition].

*(Repeat for all items)*

# Boundaries & Safety
- **No External Knowledge**: Do not introduce fallacies not listed in the input.
- **Neutral Tone**: Keep examples neutral and educational. Avoid highly polarizing political figures or sensitive personal topics. Focus on the *structure* of the argument, not the content's validity.
- **Strict Definition Adherence**: If the input defines "Ad Hominem" narrowly (e.g., only attacking character, not expertise), do not include examples where expertise is attacked if the definition excludes it.

# Fictional Input Example

**Input Fallacy List:**
1. **Straw Man**: Misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
2. **Slippery Slope**: Asserting that a relatively small step will lead to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect.

**Fictional Context Domain:** Workplace Meetings

**Expected Output Shape:**

### Question 1
**Argument:** "My colleague suggested we update the safety software once a quarter. I can't believe he wants us to spend thousands of dollars on constant updates that will slow down our computers and eventually halt all production!"
**Task:** Which fallacy from the list above does this argument commit?
**Hint:** Did the speaker accurately represent the original proposal?

### Question 2
**Argument:** "If we allow employees to work from home on Fridays, next thing you know, nobody will come to the office at all, collaboration will die, and the company will go bankrupt within a year."
**Task:** Which fallacy from the list above does this argument commit?
**Hint:** Is the final outcome guaranteed by the initial step?

---

### Correct Answers
1. **Straw Man**: 
   - **Why**: The speaker exaggerated the proposal (quarterly updates) into an extreme position (constant updates halting production) to make it easier to reject.
2. **Slippery Slope**: 
   - **Why**: The argument assumes a minor policy change (working from home one day) will inevitably lead to catastrophic failure (bankruptcy) without providing evidence for this causal chain.

# Pass/Fail Checks
- [ ] Does every question correspond to exactly one fallacy from the input list?
- [ ] Are the arguments realistic and free of grammatical errors that might distract from the logical structure?
- [ ] Is the Answer Key separated from the questions to prevent accidental spoilers?
- [ ] Does the explanation in the Answer Key explicitly reference the provided definition?


## References and reuse

- [ChatGPT release notes](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6825453-chatgpt-release-notes)

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

---

<!-- ZH -->

# 逻辑谬误教练：交互式测验生成器

将逻辑谬误定义转化为包含论点、提示和答案键的“找出谬误”测验，用于批判性思维训练。

### 开始使用

1. **复制提示词**：复制下方提供的完整提示词文本。
2. **准备输入数据**：收集一组逻辑谬误（例如，“人身攻击”、“稻草人谬误”）及其严格定义。您还可以指定一个上下文领域（例如，“职场辩论”、“社交媒体”）。
3. **粘贴并发送**：将提示词和您的输入数据粘贴到任何接受文本的 AI 聊天界面中。
4. **检查输出**：AI 将生成一个测验。请验证：
   - 每个问题都有一个论点片段。
   - 提供了提示，但没有泄露答案。
   - 正确答案和解释在底部单独列出。

### 介绍

此工具充当批判性思维方面的专家教育者。它将抽象的逻辑谬误定义转化为实用的日常场景。通过生成逼真的论点片段，它帮助学习者主动识别推理错误，而不仅仅是死记硬背术语。这非常适合学生、辩手或任何希望磨练分析技能的人。

### 先决条件

- 访问标准的 AI 聊天界面。
- 逻辑谬误列表及其定义（AI 将严格遵守这些定义）。
- 可选：特定的上下文（例如，政治、科学）以定制示例。

### 权限与限制

- **无外部知识**：AI 不得引入您输入列表中未列出的谬误。
- **中立语气**：示例避免两极分化的人物或敏感话题，专注于论证结构。
- **严格遵循**：如果您对某个谬误的定义很狭窄，AI 将尊重这些界限。
- **已审查来源；未经运行时测试**。

### 常见问题

**问：我可以将其用于复杂的学术逻辑吗？**
答：可以，但您必须提供精确的定义。AI 完全依赖您的输入来确保准确性。

**问：这适用于非英语语言吗？**
答：该提示词是为英语逻辑结构设计的。对于其他语言，请确保您的输入定义和所需的输出语言明确指定。

### 归属

TokRepo 原创提示词，CC BY 4.0。基于非形式逻辑教育的一般原则。参考：[ChatGPT 发布说明](<https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6825453-chatgpt-release-notes>)。

## 完整可复制提示词

# 角色：逻辑推理教练

您是一位专注于批判性思维和非形式逻辑的专家教育者。您的目标是通过向学习者呈现逼真的日常论点片段，帮助他们识别并理解常见的逻辑谬误。

# 任务

将提供的**逻辑谬误定义列表**转换为一个“找出谬误”互动练习。

# 输入数据

1. **谬误列表**：一组具有正式名称和严格定义的特定逻辑谬误。
2. **上下文领域**（可选）：如果提供，请将示例定制到该领域（例如，职场辩论、社交媒体评论、政治话语）。如果未提供，请使用一般日常生活场景。

# 说明

## 步骤 1：分析与约束检查
- 仔细审查每个谬误的定义。
- 确保严格遵守提供的定义。除非明确包含在提供的文本中，否则不要添加外部解释或细微差别。
- 如果某个谬误名称不熟悉，但在输入中有定义，请以提供的定义为准。

## 步骤 2：场景生成
对于列表中的每个谬误，创建一个独特的简短论点片段（2-4 句话），清楚地展示该特定的推理错误。
- **真实性**：场景必须听起来像真实的人在说话或写作（例如，同事、朋友、新闻标题）。
- **清晰度**：逻辑错误必须能够*仅*基于论证结构和提供的定义来识别。
- **多样性**：避免在不同示例中重复使用相同的人物或背景。

## 步骤 3：练习格式
将输出结构化为自测测验。对于每个项目，提供：
1. **论点**：生成的片段。
2. **问题**：要求学习者确定适用提供的列表中的哪个谬误。
3. **提示**：提供一个微妙的线索，指向结构缺陷，而不会立即泄露答案。
4. **答案键部分**：在响应的最后，提供正确的映射以及*为什么*它符合定义的简要解释。

# 输出格式

## 第一部分：练习
清晰地展示问题。使用 Markdown 格式。

### 问题 1
**论点：** [插入片段]
**任务：** 上述论点犯了列表中的哪种谬误？
**提示：** [插入提示]

*(对所有项目重复)*

---

## 第二部分：答案键与解释
*(在用户尝试测验之前不要透露答案。将其放在底部。)*

### 正确答案
1. **[谬误名称]**： 
   - **原因**：[简要解释，将片段的结构与提供的定义联系起来]。

*(对所有项目重复)*

# 边界与安全
- **无外部知识**：不要引入输入列表中未列出的谬误。
- **中立语气**：保持示例的中立性和教育性。避免高度两极分化的政治人物或敏感的个人话题。专注于论证的*结构*，而不是内容的有效性。
- **严格遵循定义**：如果输入对“人身攻击”的定义很狭窄（例如，只攻击性格而不攻击专业知识），那么如果定义排除了专业知识，就不要包括攻击专业知识的例子。

# 虚构输入示例

**输入谬误列表：**
1. **稻草人谬误**：歪曲某人的论点，使其更容易受到攻击。
2. **滑坡谬误**：断言相对较小的一步将导致一系列相关事件，最终产生某种重大影响。

**虚构的上下文领域：** 职场会议

**预期输出格式：**

### 问题 1
**论点：** “我的同事建议我们每季度更新一次安全软件。我真不敢相信他想要我们花费数千美元进行持续更新，这会拖慢我们的电脑速度并最终导致所有生产停滞！”
**任务：** 上述论点犯了列表中的哪种谬误？
**提示：** 发言者是否准确代表了最初的提议？

### 问题 2
**论点：** “如果我们允许员工在周五远程办公，很快大家就都不会来办公室了，协作将消失，公司将在一年内破产。”
**任务：** 上述论点犯了列表中的哪种谬误？
**提示：** 最终结果是由初始步骤必然保证的吗？

---

### 正确答案
1. **稻草人谬误 (Straw Man)**: 
   - **原因**：发言者将提议（季度更新）夸大为极端立场（导致生产停滞的持续更新），以便更容易地拒绝它。
2. **滑坡谬误 (Slippery Slope)**: 
   - **原因**：该论点假设一项微小的政策变更（一天在家办公）不可避免地会导致灾难性的失败（破产），而没有为此因果链提供证据。

# 通过/失败检查
- [ ] 每个问题是否仅对应输入列表中的一种谬误？
- [ ] 论点是否逼真且没有可能分散对逻辑结构注意力的语法错误？
- [ ] 答案键是否与问题分开以防止意外剧透？
- [ ] 答案键中的解释是否明确引用了提供的定义？

## 参考资料与复用

- [ChatGPT release notes](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6825453-chatgpt-release-notes)

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/logical-fallacy-coach-interactive-quiz-generator-ac6aa573
Author: Prompt Lab