The 15 Lenses

Four questions you can ask of any argument. Fifteen ways to answer them.

Evaluate the Argument

Is this argument well-constructed?

Methods for testing whether an argument is built on solid reasoning, sound evidence, and honest framing — before you judge the conclusion.

Cognitive Bias Detection

a method for identifying systematic reasoning errors in an author's arguments, surfacing the cognitive biases that distort how evidence is selected, interpreted, and presented.

Epistemic Status Mapping

a method for classifying each claim in a text by its evidence strength, distinguishing established facts from inference, speculation, and unexamined assumptions.

Evidence Quality Assessment

a method for evaluating whether the sources, data, and citations an author presents actually support the claims they are used to defend.

Toulmin Argument Mapping

a method for mapping an argument's claims, evidence, and warrants to reveal where logical connections hold and where they break.

Question the Author

Can I trust this author?

Methods for reading the writer as well as the writing — spotting unstated motives, strategic omissions, and the colour of their lens.

Assumption Audit

a method for surfacing unstated premises an author relies on but never defends, revealing where an argument depends on beliefs the reader may not share.

Deception Detection

a method for identifying deliberate rhetorical techniques an author uses to mislead, revealing where framing, omissions, and misdirection substitute for honest argument.

Steelman Then Critique

a method for first reconstructing an argument at its strongest possible form, then identifying the weaknesses that survive even the most charitable interpretation.

Structured Self-Critique

a method for evaluating whether an author honestly examines their own reasoning, measuring the gap between the confidence they project and the self-awareness they demonstrate.

Find What's Missing

What isn't the author saying?

Methods for surfacing the perspectives, evidence, and counter-cases the argument leaves out — deliberately or unconsciously.

Blind Spot Analysis

a method for systematically identifying perspectives, evidence, and stakeholders an author omits entirely, revealing the gaps that shape an argument by their absence.

Contrarian Consensus Analysis

a method for mapping where an author agrees with and departs from expert consensus, evaluating whether each contrarian position reflects genuine insight or unsupported dissent.

Devil's Advocate

a method for systematically constructing the strongest possible opposing case against an author's position, exposing where the argument fails under direct challenge.

Second-Order Effects Analysis

a method for tracing an argument's downstream consequences beyond its stated conclusions, revealing the chain reactions and unintended effects the author left unexplored.

Think Deeper

What would a deeper analysis reveal?

Methods for pushing past the surface claim to the structural assumptions, second-order effects, and foundational questions the argument rests on.

Analysis-Informed Application

a method for extracting concrete, actionable takeaways from analytical reading, translating an argument's insights into decisions, strategies, and implementation steps.

First Principles

a method for decomposing an argument to its foundational premises, stripping away inherited assumptions to reveal which bedrock truths the conclusion actually rests on.

Socratic Questioning

a method for generating structured sequences of probing questions that expose hidden complexity, unstated assumptions, and logical gaps in an author's reasoning.