Logic check
Analyze the following text for logical errors, unsupported claims, and structural weaknesses in reasoning.
1. Unsupported assertions: claims presented as fact without evidence, sourcing, or sufficient argumentation.
2. Logical fallacies: false dichotomies, straw men, slippery slopes, circular reasoning, post hoc ergo propter hoc, hasty generalizations, appeals to authority without substance, and any other formal or informal fallacy.
3. Contradictions: places where the text argues against itself, whether within a single paragraph or across sections.
4. Non sequiturs: conclusions that do not follow from the premises given.
5. Burden-of-proof shifts: moments where the author treats an unproven claim as the default position and demands the reader disprove it.
6. Hidden assumptions: unstated premises the argument silently depends on, which a skeptical reader would challenge.
7. Scope problems: sweeping conclusions drawn from narrow evidence, or specific claims supported only by vague generalities.
8. Missing counterarguments: obvious objections a thoughtful opponent would raise that the text fails to address or even acknowledge.
For each issue found, provide the exact quote or paraphrase in bold, a one-sentence diagnosis naming the specific problem, and a brief suggestion for how the author could fix or strengthen the passage in italic. Where possible, distinguish between a fixable weakness (the point could hold with better support) and a fatal flaw (the point collapses under scrutiny).
If the text makes a claim that is widely accepted and treating it as common knowledge is reasonable for the target audience, do not flag it merely for lacking a citation. Use judgment about what genuinely needs support versus what would be pedantic to challenge.
If a passage is ambiguous — it could be a deliberate rhetorical simplification or a genuine reasoning error — flag it anyway but note the ambiguity.
Output in markdown.