---
name: leoyeai/is-it-ture
source: https://app.decimal.ai/s/leoyeai-is-it-ture@1/SKILL.md
source_sha256: fc27743cdd4d
---

# Critical Analysis Skill (Is-It-Ture)

A comprehensive framework for systematic dialectical examination of viewpoints, factual statements, or web content, based on the critical thinking methodology of "Asking the Right Questions" by Browne and Keeley.

## Core Analysis Process

### Step 1: Determine Analysis Type

**Classify the input into one of the following types:**

| Type | Characteristics | Analysis Focus |
|------|-----------------|----------------|
| **Factual Statement** | Verifiable objective claims involving data, research, statistics, etc. | Authenticity, scientific basis, evidence support |
| **Opinion-based Statement** | Contains value judgments, opinions, or suggestions | Thesis, conclusion, argument, evidence, assumptions |
| **Web/Article Content** | Mixed content combining facts and opinions | Separate facts from opinions, then analyze each |

### Step 2: Factual Statement Verification Framework

For each factual statement, systematically verify the following dimensions:

#### 2.1 Source Tracing
- **Original Source**: Where did this data/conclusion originate?
- **Authority**: Does the source have professional credentials (academic journals, government agencies, renowned research institutions)?
- **Timeliness**: Is the information outdated? Are there more recent studies or data?

#### 2.2 Multi-Source Cross-Validation (Mandatory Step)

Multi-source cross-validation must be performed for ALL types of input (factual statements, opinion-based statements, web content):

**2.2.1 Verification Strategies**

| Verification Method | Action |
|---------------------|--------|
| **Direct Search Verification** | Use search engines to find reliable sources for original data/research |
| **Cross-Validation** | Verify the same fact through 3+ different reliable sources |
| **Reverse Verification** | Search whether the information has been denied by official/authoritative institutions |
| **Deep Tracing** | Trace the information dissemination chain to find the original source |

**2.2.2 Source Reliability Ratings**

| Grade | Type | Description |
|-------|------|-------------|
| **A+** | Government official data, prestigious academic journals, peer-reviewed research | Highest credibility |
| **A** | Reports from renowned institutions (WHO, World Bank, etc.), verified mainstream media reports | Highly credible |
| **B+** | Professional media, industry association reports, content with clear source citations | Basically credible |
| **B** | General media reports, personal blogs without clear sources | Requires cross-validation |
| **C** | Social media, forum posts, content with untraceable sources | Suspicious |
| **D** | Anonymous posts, marketing content, confirmed misinformation | Not credible |

**2.2.3 Information Source Type Identification**

| Type | Characteristics | Risk Level |
|------|------------------|------------|
| **Misinformation** | Content contradicts established facts, no reliable source support | High |
| **Marketing Copy** | Commercial purpose, exaggeration or out-of-context presentation | High |
| **Unverifiable Private Information** | No verifiable source, subjective statements presented as objective facts | Medium-High |
| **Misleading Information** | Partially true but deliberately misleading | High |
| **Outdated Information** | Previously correct data/conclusions that are now obsolete | Medium |

**2.2.4 Cross-Validation Checklist**

- [ ] Was the original source found? What is the original source?
- [ ] Are there 3+ independent reliable sources supporting this information?
- [ ] Are there any reliable sources that contradict this?
- [ ] Has this information been denied or corrected by authoritative institutions?
- [ ] Does the information come from known misinformation sources?
- [ ] Is there any out-of-context or selective quoting?
- [ ] Have the data/statistics been deliberately distorted (scale, base, comparison method)?

**2.2.5 Information Tracing Path**

```
Original Input
    ↓
Is a specific source mentioned? (research/report/institution/person)
    ├─ Yes → Trace that source → Verify source reliability → Find original data
    └─ No → Multi-keyword search → Attempt to find reliable sources
              ↓
        Reliable source found?
            ├─ Yes → Compare original statement with original information
            └─ No → Mark as "source unknown" → Lower credibility rating
```

#### 2.3 Scientific Principle Verification
- **Consistency with Known Scientific Principles**: Does the statement align with established scientific theories?
- **Mechanism Explanation**: Can it explain the underlying causal mechanism?
- **Boundary Conditions**: What are the applicable conditions and scope of this conclusion?

#### 2.4 Evidence Quality Assessment
- **Direct Evidence**: Is there direct experimental data, statistical data, or research results supporting it?
- **Indirect Evidence**: Is the inference chain rigorous?
- **Sample Quality**: Is the research sample representative? Is the sample size sufficient?
- **Research Design**: Is the research methodology scientific? Are there design flaws?

#### 2.5 Logical Consistency
- **Internal Consistency**: Are there internal contradictions within the statement?
- **External Consistency**: Does it align with other reliable evidence?
- **Causation vs. Correlation**: Has causation been confused with correlation?

### Step 3: Opinion-Based Statement Analysis Framework

Deconstruct opinion-based statements into their components for systematic analysis, while performing multi-source cross-validation on any factual content involved:

#### 3.1 Thesis Identification
- **Core Question**: What question is the author trying to answer?
- **Thesis Type**: Descriptive (what is) or Prescriptive (what should be)?

#### 3.2 Conclusion Extraction
- **Main Conclusion**: What is the author's core claim?
- **Sub-conclusions**: What specific points support the main conclusion?
- **Conclusion Priority**: Which are main points and which are supporting arguments?

#### 3.3 Argument Structure Analysis
```
Argument = Conclusion + Reasons + Evidence + Hidden Assumptions
```

- **Reasons**: What reasons does the author use to support the conclusion?
- **Evidence Types**:
  - Personal experience/cases
  - Unofficial expert opinions
  - Eyewitness testimony
  - Typical cases
  - Quoted authorities/experts
  - Personal observation
  - Research results/statistical data
  - Analogies
  - Presumed premises
- **Evidence Quality**: How strong a conclusion can this type of evidence support?

#### 3.4 Assumption Identification

**Explicit Assumptions** (clearly stated by the author):
- What are the author's preconditions?

**Implicit Assumptions** (unstated but necessary):
- Value Assumption: What does the author consider more important? (efficiency vs. fairness, individual vs. collective, etc.)
- Descriptive Assumption: What does the author believe about how the world works?

**Questions for Examining Assumptions**:
- Is this assumption true/correct?
- If the assumption is false, does the conclusion still hold?
- Does this assumption conflict with reader or societal consensus?

#### 3.5 Position Analysis
- **Author's Position**: From what standpoint is the author speaking?
- **Beneficiary**: Who benefits from this viewpoint?
- **Conflict of Interest**: Is there obvious interest-driven motivation?
- **Reader's Position**: Is the reader automatically placed in a certain position?

### Step 4: Common Fallacy Identification

Examine arguments in opinion-based statements for logical fallacies:

| Fallacy Type | Description | Verification Question |
|--------------|-------------|---------------------|
| **Ad Hominem** | Attacking the person rather than the argument | Is it questioning the person rather than the argument? |
| **Straw Man** | Distorting the opposing view | Is it refuting a point the opponent didn't make? |
| **Slippery Slope** | Unwarranted chain inference | Is there sufficient evidence for each step? |
| **Appeal to Authority** | Using authority instead of argument | Is the authority an expert in this field? Is the issue within their expertise? |
| **Appeal to Emotion** | Using emotion instead of logic | Is it manipulating reader emotions rather than reasoning? |
| **False Dilemma** | Creating a false either/or situation | Are middle-ground or other possibilities ignored? |
| **Equivocation** | Changing key term definitions | Have key concepts changed during argumentation? |
| **Circular Reasoning** | Using the conclusion to prove the premise | Are the reasons merely restatements of the conclusion? |
| **Hasty Generalization** | Concluding from insufficient samples | Is the sample sufficient to represent the whole? |
| **Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc** | Assuming sequence equals causation | Is there another explanation? |

### Step 5: Web/Article Content Processing

For web content, additionally perform the following steps:

#### 5.1 Source Reliability Assessment
- **Website Reputation**: What is the nature of the website? (government/academic/commercial/personal blog)
- **Author Information**: Is author information provided? What is the author's professional background?
- **Citations**: Are reliable sources cited?
- **Update Date**: Is the information current?

#### 5.2 Content Structure Analysis
- **Fact vs. Opinion Separation**: Distinguish between objective facts and subjective opinions
- **Contextual Completeness**: Is it taken out of context? Is important background missing?
- **Presentation Method**: Is the data presentation misleading (truncated scales, sample selection, etc.)?

#### 5.3 Source Cross-Validation (Web-Specific)

Web content cross-validation requires special attention to:

| Verification Item | Action |
|-------------------|--------|
| **Domain Verification** | Check if it's a spoofed/phishing website |
| **Publication Time Verification** | Find the original publication date and subsequent update records |
| **Content Consistency Verification** | Compare web snapshots to check for content tampering |
| **Citation Source Tracing** | Trace all external links cited in the webpage |
| **Reverse Image Search** | Perform reverse image search to verify if images have been misappropriated |
| **Social Media Cross-Validation** | Search whether this content was spread on social media and if there was subsequent debunking |

### Step 6: Comprehensive Assessment

Based on the above analysis, provide a structured assessment conclusion:

#### Assessment Standards

| Grade | Rating | Meaning |
|-------|--------|---------|
| **Highly Credible** | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Sufficient reliable evidence, consistent with scientific principles, rigorous logic |
| **Basically Credible** | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Evidence basically sufficient, minor doubts may exist |
| **Pending Verification** | ⭐⭐⭐ | Insufficient evidence, more information needed |
| **Questionable** | ⭐⭐ | Obvious logical problems or insufficient evidence |
| **Not Credible** | ⭐ | Serious errors, misinformation, or malicious misleading |

#### Assessment Report Structure

```
## Comprehensive Assessment Report

### Verdict
[Credibility rating and brief conclusion]

### Key Findings
1. [Primary finding 1]
2. [Primary finding 2]
3. [Primary finding 3]

### Multi-Source Cross-Validation Results
- Original Source Rating: [A+/A/B+/B/C/D]
- Cross-Validation Source Count: [X independent reliable sources]
- Verification Results:
  - Supported by: [X sources]
  - Contradicted by: [X sources]
  - No reliable source found: [description]
- Information Type Identification: [Misinformation/Marketing Copy/Unverifiable Private Information/Misleading Information/Outdated Information/Normal]

### Evidence Assessment
- Evidence Source: [description]
- Evidence Quality: [assessment]
- Evidence Gap: [existing deficiencies]

### Argumentation Quality
- Logical Structure: [assessment]
- Assumption Reasonableness: [assessment]
- Potential Fallacies: [identified issues]

### Position and Interest Analysis
- Author's Position: [identified]
- Potential Bias: [identified]
- Reader Impact: [analysis]

### Reasoning Process Supporting Conclusion
[detailed reasoning chain]

### Usage Recommendations
[How to use this information, any precautions]
```

## Usage Examples

### Example 1: Factual Statement Verification

**Input**: "A study shows that drinking coffee every day can extend lifespan."

**Analysis Output**:
```
### Analysis Type: Factual Statement

### Source Tracing
- Research Source: [tracing results]
- Authority: [assessment]
- Sample Size and Research Design: [analysis]

### Scientific Principle Verification
- Mechanism Explanation: [whether it exists]
- Causation vs. Correlation: [distinction result]

### Evidence Assessment
- Direct Evidence: [assessment]
- Confounding Variables: [whether considered]
- Reproducibility: [whether other research supports/contradicts]

### Comprehensive Assessment
[verdict and reasoning]
```

### Example 2: Opinion-Based Statement Verification

**Input**: "We should completely ban artificial intelligence because it will replace human jobs."

**Analysis Output**:
```
### Analysis Type: Opinion-based Statement

### Thesis Identification
- Core Question: Should AI be banned?
- Thesis Type: Prescriptive

### Conclusion Extraction
- Main Conclusion: AI should be completely banned
- Implicit Premise: The harm of AI replacing jobs outweighs its benefits

### Argumentation Structure
- Reason: AI will replace human jobs
- Evidence: [missing argumentation]
- Assumptions: Work is the main value of life; banning AI won't cause other problems

### Fallacy Identification
- Slippery Slope: Assuming replacement will lead to complete replacement
- False Dilemma: Ignoring the possibility of "regulated development"
- Hasty Generalization: Using partial replacement cases to generalize the whole

### Comprehensive Assessment
[verdict]
```

## Important Notes

1. **Maintain Objectivity**: Do not take sides during analysis; let evidence speak
2. **Distinguish Certainty from Speculation**: Clearly mark what is certain vs. what is speculation
3. **Acknowledge Uncertainty**: Be transparent about problems that cannot be determined rather than forcing conclusions
4. **Focus on Evidence Quality**: Not all evidence has equal value
5. **Recognize Timeliness**: Information may change over time; dynamic evaluation is needed
6. **Multi-perspective Examination**: Multiple reasonable perspectives may exist for the same issue
7. **Prioritize Multi-Source Validation**: For all input, multi-source cross-validation MUST be performed first; do not rely solely on a single source
8. **Be Vigilant Against Source-less Information**: For information that cannot be traced to reliable sources, credibility ratings must be lowered

## Output Standards

The final output MUST contain ALL of the following sections:

1. **Analysis Type Determination**: Clearly state whether it is factual or opinion-based
2. **Multi-Source Cross-Validation** (Mandatory):
   - Original source rating
   - Cross-validation results (supported/contradicted/not found)
   - Information type identification
3. **Systematic Verification**: Analyze item by item according to the above framework
4. **Verdict**: Clear credibility rating (⭐-⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐)
5. **Reasoning Process**: Complete reasoning chain supporting the conclusion
6. **Usage Recommendations**: How to correctly use this information

### Credibility Downgrade Triggers

The following situations MUST trigger credibility rating downgrade:

| Trigger Condition | Downgrade Magnitude |
|-------------------|---------------------|
| Original source cannot be found | At least 1 grade lower |
| No reliable source for cross-validation | At least 2 grades lower |
| Contradicting information found | At least 1 grade lower |
| Identified as misinformation/marketing/misleading | Directly mark as not credible |
| Information from anonymous/private sources | At least 2 grades lower |