argument-strength-evaluation

Assess Argument Strength

Overview Table

Item	Content
Capability Name	Assess Argument Strength
Capability Type	Metacognition/Self-Assessment
Core Function	Conduct confidence assessment on legal reasoning conclusions, identify and mark weak links
Input	A complete legal reasoning process and its conclusion
Output	Argument strength rating, weak link annotations, improvement suggestions
Prerequisite Capabilities	Legal reasoning, legal provision retrieval, element analysis, similar case comparison, etc.
Subsequent Applications	Drafting legal opinions, formulating litigation strategies, risk assessment, decision recommendations
Key Risks	Overconfidence leading to overlooked risks, excessive conservatism leading to useless conclusions

Legal Disclaimer

Important Notice: The argument strength assessment produced by this skill is only an auxiliary analysis tool and does not constitute formal legal advice. The final judgment of legal reasoning should be made by legal professionals with practicing qualifications. Argument strength assessment itself is subjective, and different assessors may reach different conclusions. The self-assessment of AI systems has inherent limitations, including but not limited to: the inability to fully foresee the uncertainty of judicial adjudication, the inability to replace firsthand judgment of specific case facts, and the possible systematic assessment bias caused by training data bias. Users should treat the assessment results as reference rather than definitive conclusions.

I. Core Concepts

1.1 What Is Argument Strength

Argument Strength refers to the degree of support from premises to conclusion in a piece of legal reasoning, reflecting the likelihood and persuasiveness of the conclusion being adopted in law. It is not a binary judgment (right/wrong), but a position on a continuous spectrum.

1.2 Constitutive Dimensions of Argument Strength

Argument strength is jointly determined by the following six core dimensions:

Dimension	Meaning	Weight Description
Certainty of Legal Basis	The degree of clarity, level of legal effect, and current validity of the cited legal norms	Basic dimension, highest weight
Sufficiency of Factual Basis	Whether the facts supporting the reasoning are sufficient and whether the evidence is conclusive	Core dimension, directly affecting the reliability of the conclusion
Rigorousness of Logical Reasoning	Whether there are logical jumps or fallacies in the reasoning process from premises to conclusion	Structural dimension, determining whether the argument is self-consistent
Resistance to Counterarguments	Whether the argument can effectively withstand foreseeable objections	Adversarial dimension, reflecting the robustness of the argument
Consistency with Judicial Practice	Whether the conclusion is consistent with mainstream judicial adjudication tendencies	Practical dimension, affecting the possibility of actual adoption
Reasonableness of value judgments	Whether the value orientation is reasonable when involving interest balancing and purposive interpretation	Supplementary dimension, with increased weight in hard cases

1.3 Relationship between argument strength and confidence

Argument strength: Objective evaluation of the quality of the argument itself
Confidence: The degree of certainty of the AI system regarding its own assessment results (meta-confidence)
The two may be inconsistent: for example, the AI may judge an argument as "moderate strength" with high confidence (confident in the assessment itself, but the argument itself contains uncertainty)

1.4 Typology of weak links

Type of weak link	Definition	Severity	Example
Fatal defect	A fundamental problem sufficient to overturn the entire argument	★★★★★	Citing a repealed legal provision, contradiction between factual findings and evidence
Major weakness	A problem that significantly weakens the persuasiveness of the argument	★★★★☆	Lack of direct evidence for a key element, existence of strong rebuttal
Moderate risk	A problem that may be exploited by the opposing party but is not fatal	★★★☆☆	Inconsistent adjudication in similar cases, significant academic controversy
Minor flaw	Affects the perfection of the argument but not the core conclusion	★★☆☆☆	Poor order of discussion, auxiliary arguments not sufficiently adequate
Potential hidden risk	Currently not a problem but may be exposed under specific conditions	★☆☆☆☆	Trends in legal revision, risk of policy changes

II. Complete workflow

Phase 1: Argument Deconstruction

Objective: Decompose the argument to be evaluated into components that can be independently assessed.

Step 1: Identify the argument structure

1.1 提取核心结论（Conclusion）
    → 该论证最终要证明什么？
1.2 提取主要前提（Premises）
    → 结论依赖哪些事实前提和法律前提？
1.3 识别推理规则（Inference Rules）
    → 从前提到结论使用了什么推理方法？
    （演绎推理/归纳推理/类比推理/目的解释/体系解释等）
1.4 识别隐含假设（Hidden Assumptions）
    → 论证中有哪些未明示但必须成立的前提？
1.5 绘制论证链条图
    → 将上述要素组织为清晰的推理链条

Step 2: Mark assessment nodes

对论证链条中的每个节点标记：
- [F] 事实节点：需要评估事实基础
- [L] 法律节点：需要评估法律依据
- [R] 推理节点：需要评估逻辑关系
- [A] 假设节点：需要评估隐含假设的合理性
- [V] 价值节点：需要评估价值判断的合理性

Phase 2: Dimensional Assessment

Step 3: Assess the certainty of the legal basis

检查清单：
□ 所援引法律规范是否现行有效？
□ 法律规范的效力层级是否足够？（宪法>法律>行政法规>规章>规范性文件）
□ 法条含义是否明确，还是存在多种解释可能？
□ 是否存在特别法与一般法、新法与旧法的适用冲突？
□ 司法解释是否明确支持该种理解？
□ 是否存在指导性案例对该法条的权威解释？
□ 该法律规范是否处于修订讨论中？

评分标准：
- 5分：法律依据明确、效力层级高、无争议
- 4分：法律依据较明确，存在细微解释空间
- 3分：法律依据存在，但解释存在分歧
- 2分：法律依据模糊，需要大量解释论证
- 1分：缺乏直接法律依据，需要类推或法律原则填补

Step 4: Assess the sufficiency of the factual basis

检查清单：
□ 关键事实是否有充分证据支撑？
□ 证据的证明力如何？（直接证据vs间接证据）
□ 证据链是否完整？
□ 是否存在事实不明或争议事实？
□ 举证责任分配是否有利？
□ 对方可能提出哪些反证？
□ 事实认定是否依赖于证据的采信判断？

评分标准：
- 5分：事实清楚，证据确实充分，无争议
- 4分：主要事实有证据支撑，个别细节待补强
- 3分：基本事实有证据，但关键环节证据不够充分
- 2分：事实存在重大争议，证据链有明显缺口
- 1分：事实基础薄弱，核心事实缺乏证据支撑

Step 5: Assess the rigor of logical reasoning

检查清单：
□ 是否存在逻辑跳跃（前提不能直接推出结论）？
□ 是否存在循环论证？
□ 是否存在以偏概全（不当归纳）？
□ 类比推理中，比较对象是否具有实质相似性？
□ 是否混淆了充分条件与必要条件？
□ 是否存在滑坡谬误？
□ 是否存在诉诸权威但权威不当的情况？
□ 三段论的大前提、小前提是否都成立？
□ 多步推理中每一步是否都经得起检验？

评分标准：
- 5分：推理严密，逻辑无瑕疵
- 4分：推理基本严密，存在可忽略的小瑕疵
- 3分：推理大体成立，但存在可被质疑的逻辑环节
- 2分：推理存在明显逻辑问题，需要补充论证
- 1分：推理存在根本性逻辑错误

Step 6: Assess resistance to rebuttal

检查清单：
□ 是否已识别所有可预见的反对意见？
□ 对方最强的反驳论点是什么？
□ 论证能否有效回应这些反驳？
□ 是否存在"致命反驳"（一个反驳即可推翻整个论证）？
□ 对方是否可能提出程序性抗辩？
□ 是否考虑了免责事由、抗辩权、时效等防御手段？
□ 论证是否过于依赖单一论点而缺乏备选方案？

评分标准：
- 5分：已充分预见并有效回应所有主要反驳
- 4分：能回应大部分反驳，个别反驳回应力度一般
- 3分：存在较强反驳意见，回应效果不确定
- 2分：存在难以有效回应的重大反驳
- 1分：存在致命反驳，论证难以维持

Step 7: Assess consistency with judicial practice

检查清单：
□ 是否有相同或类似问题的裁判案例？
□ 主流裁判倾向是否支持该结论？
□ 是否存在裁判分歧（同案不同判）？
□ 最高人民法院/最高人民检察院的态度如何？
□ 案件所在地法院是否有特殊的裁判倾向？
□ 近年裁判趋势是否发生变化？
□ 是否有指导性案例或公报案例直接相关？

评分标准：
- 5分：与主流司法实践高度一致，有权威案例支撑
- 4分：与多数裁判倾向一致，少数案例有不同
- 3分：司法实践存在分歧，结论属于可能被采纳的观点之一
- 2分：与多数裁判倾向不一致，属于少数观点
- 1分：与主流司法实践明显矛盾，几乎无支持案例

Step 8: Assess the reasonableness of value judgments

检查清单：
□ 论证是否涉及利益衡量？衡量标准是否合理？
□ 目的解释是否符合立法目的？
□ 价值取向是否符合社会主义核心价值观？
□ 是否兼顾了各方利益的平衡？
□ 是否符合公平正义的基本要求？
□ 是否考虑了社会效果与法律效果的统一？
□ 在疑难案件中，价值选择是否有充分论证？

评分标准：
- 5分：价值判断合理，符合主流价值取向
- 4分：价值判断基本合理，个别方面可商榷
- 3分：价值判断存在争议，不同立场可能有不同评价
- 2分：价值判断偏颇，可能引发合理质疑
- 1分：价值判断明显不当，违背基本法律价值

Phase 3: Synthesis

Step 9: Calculate the composite strength score

加权计算公式：
综合评分 = 法律依据确定性 × W1 + 事实基础充分性 × W2 + 
           逻辑推理严密性 × W3 + 反驳抗辩力 × W4 + 
           司法实践一致性 × W5 + 价值判断合理性 × W6

默认权重（可根据案件类型调整）：
- 常规案件：W1=0.25, W2=0.25, W3=0.20, W4=0.15, W5=0.10, W6=0.05
- 疑难案件：W1=0.15, W2=0.15, W3=0.20, W4=0.15, W5=0.15, W6=0.20
- 事实争议案件：W1=0.15, W2=0.35, W3=0.15, W4=0.15, W5=0.15, W6=0.05
- 法律适用争议案件：W1=0.30, W2=0.10, W3=0.20, W4=0.15, W5=0.20, W6=0.05

注意：存在致命缺陷时，无论综合评分如何，整体评级应降至"弱"或"极弱"。

Step 10: Determine the argument strength level

Composite score	Strength level	Meaning	Color marking
4.5-5.0	Extremely strong	The argument is almost unassailable, and the conclusion is highly reliable	🟢 Dark green
3.5-4.4	Strong	The argument is powerful, the conclusion is relatively reliable, and there are minor deficiencies	🟢 Green
2.5-3.4	Moderate	The argument has some persuasiveness, but there is obvious uncertainty	🟡 Yellow
1.5-2.4	Weak	The argument lacks persuasiveness, and the conclusion faces major challenges	🟠 Orange
1.0-1.4	Extremely weak	The argument is basically untenable, and the conclusion is difficult to sustain	🔴 Red

Step 11: Mark weak links

对每个识别出的薄弱环节，记录：
1. 环节位置：在论证链条中的具体位置
2. 薄弱类型：致命缺陷/重大弱点/中度风险/轻度瑕疵/潜在隐患
3. 具体描述：该环节为何薄弱
4. 影响范围：该薄弱环节影响论证的哪些部分
5. 可修复性：是否可以通过补充论证/证据来修复
6. 修复建议：如何加强该环节

Phase Four: Meta-Assessment

Step 12: Assess the confidence of your own assessment

对整个评估过程进行反思：
□ 我是否充分理解了论证的完整语境？
□ 我的法律知识在该领域是否足够？
□ 我是否可能存在确认偏差（倾向于验证而非质疑）？
□ 我是否遗漏了重要的评估维度？
□ 我的评分是否受到锚定效应影响？
□ 如果换一个角度，评估结果是否会不同？
□ 该领域是否存在我不了解的最新发展？

元置信度等级：
- 高置信度：评估基于充分信息，方法论适当，结论可靠
- 中置信度：评估基于合理信息，但存在信息缺口或方法论局限
- 低置信度：评估基于有限信息，结论仅供参考

III. Comparison of Common Fields and Legal Sources

Legal Field	Assessment Focus	Commonly Used Legal Sources	Special Considerations
Contract Disputes	Interpretation of contract terms, determination of breach, calculation of damages	Contract Part of the Civil Code, relevant judicial interpretations	Note the boundary between the principle of party autonomy and mandatory provisions
Tort Liability	Determination of causation, judgment of fault, proportion of liability	Tort Liability Part of the Civil Code, Interpretation on Compensation for Personal Injury	Causation argumentation is often the weakest link
Criminal Defense	Elements of the crime, sufficiency of evidence, sentencing circumstances	Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure Law, relevant judicial interpretations	Highest evidentiary standard (beyond reasonable doubt), requires special attention
Administrative Litigation	Legality of administrative acts, procedural propriety, discretion	Administrative Litigation Law, Administrative Penalty Law, etc.	Burden of proof is reversed, pay attention to the administrative organ's ability to adduce evidence
Intellectual Property	Validity of rights, infringement comparison, damages	Patent Law, Trademark Law, Copyright Law, etc.	Determination of technical facts is often the weakest link
Labor Disputes	Determination of labor relations, legality of termination, economic compensation	Labor Law, Labor Contract Law, relevant judicial interpretations	The principle of tilted protection affects the assessment of argumentation strength
Corporate Governance	Validity of resolutions, shareholder rights, director liability	Company Law and judicial interpretations	Note the impact of the latest amendments to Company Law

IV. Verification and Screening Rules

4.1 Pre-verification of Argument Validity

Before conducting the strength assessment, it must first be verified whether the argument meets the basic conditions of validity:

前置验证清单（任一不通过则论证无效，无需进行强度评估）：
[V1] 论证是否有明确的结论？
     → 不通过：要求明确论证目标后重新评估
[V2] 论证是否至少有一个法律依据？
     → 不通过：标记为"缺乏法律基础，论证不成立"
[V3] 论证的前提与结论之间是否存在逻辑关联？
     → 不通过：标记为"论证结构不成立"
[V4] 论证是否基于可验证的事实（而非纯粹假设）？
     → 不通过：标记为"事实基础缺失"（假设性分析除外）

4.2 Screening Rules for Assessment Results

规则1（致命缺陷否决规则）：
  IF 任一维度评分 = 1 AND 该维度为法律依据确定性或事实基础充分性
  THEN 整体评级 ≤ "弱"，无论综合评分如何

规则2（短板效应规则）：
  IF 任意两个及以上维度评分 ≤ 2
  THEN 整体评级 ≤ "中等"

规则3（一致性校验规则）：
  IF 综合评分与直觉判断差异 > 1个等级
  THEN 触发复核流程，重新审视各维度评分

规则4（领域特殊规则）：
  IF 案件类型 = 刑事案件 AND 事实基础充分性 ≤ 3
  THEN 整体评级自动降一级（体现排除合理怀疑标准）

规则5（信息不足降级规则）：
  IF 元置信度 = "低"
  THEN 在最终评级后附加"[信息不足，评估可靠性有限]"标注

V. Output Format Templates

5.1 Standard Output Template

## 论证强度评估报告

### 一、论证概要
- **评估对象：** [简述被评估的论证内容]
- **核心结论：** [被评估论证的核心结论]
- **论证类型：** [演绎推理/归纳推理/类比推理/综合推理]
- **法律领域：** [所属法律领域]

### 二、论证结构分析
[论证链条图或结构化描述]

### 三、各维度评分

| 评估维度 | 评分(1-5) | 简要说明 |
|----------|-----------|----------|
| 法律依据确定性 | X.X | [说明] |
| 事实基础充分性 | X.X | [说明] |
| 逻辑推理严密性 | X.X | [说明] |
| 反驳抗辩力 | X.X | [说明] |
| 司法实践一致性 | X.X | [说明] |
| 价值判断合理性 | X.X | [说明] |

### 四、综合评定
- **综合评分：** X.X / 5.0
- **强度等级：** [极强/强/中等/弱/极弱] [颜色标记]
- **元置信度：** [高/中/低]

### 五、薄弱环节标注

#### 薄弱环节1：[名称]
- **类型：** [致命缺陷/重大弱点/中度风险/轻度瑕疵/潜在隐患]
- **位置：** [在论证链条中的位置]
- **描述：** [具体说明]
- **影响：** [对论证整体的影响]
- **可修复性：** [高/中/低]
- **修复建议：** [具体建议]

#### 薄弱环节2：[名称]
[同上格式]

### 六、总体评价与建议
[综合性评价文字，包括论证的主要优势、核心风险、改进方向]

### 七、免责说明
本评估基于现有信息作出，评估结论仅供参考。[元置信度说明]

5.2 Brief Output Template (for embedding in other analyses)

**[论证强度评估]**
- 强度等级：🟢强（3.8/5.0）| 元置信度：中
- 主要优势：[一句话概括]
- 薄弱环节：⚠️ [环节1名称]（中度风险）；⚠️ [环节2名称]（轻度瑕疵）
- 关键提示：[最重要的一条建议]

VI. Confidence Annotation System

6.1 Dimension Score Confidence

For each dimension score, attach a confidence annotation:

Annotation Symbol	Meaning	Usage Scenario
`[确定]`	The score is based on clear legal provisions or conclusive facts	Legal provisions are clear, facts are undisputed
`[较确定]`	The score is based on sufficient but not absolute grounds	Supported by mainstream views but with a minority of differing opinions
`[不确定]`	The score is based on limited information or there is considerable controversy	Legal gaps, unclear facts, divergent adjudication
`[推测]`	The score is based on inference rather than direct grounds	Lack of direct information, judgment based on experience or analogy
`[待验证]`	The score depends on information that has not yet been verified	Further retrieval or confirmation is needed

6.2 Template for Explaining Overall Assessment Confidence

本评估的元置信度为[高/中/低]，具体说明如下：
- 信息充分性：[充分/基本充分/不充分]——[原因说明]
- 专业匹配度：[高/中/低]——[该领域知识储备说明]
- 方法论适当性：[适当/基本适当/存在局限]——[方法论局限说明]
- 已知盲区：[列举已识别的评估盲区]

VII. Common Errors and Prevention

7.1 Fatal Error Table

Number	Error Name	Error Description	Consequence	Preventive Measure
E01	Overconfidence Bias	Systematically overestimates the strength of the argument and ignores weak points	Misleads decision-makers into underestimating risk	Mandatorily implement a "devil's advocate" check: construct the strongest rebuttal for each conclusion
E02	Confirmation Bias	Tends to seek evidence supporting an existing conclusion and ignores contrary evidence	Assessment loses objectivity	Clearly list possible counterarguments before assessment
E03	Anchoring Effect	Scoring is influenced by the arguer's confidence level or manner of expression	Scores deviate from the argument's actual quality	Separate evaluation of the argument's content from its presentation style
E04	Omission of Fatal Flaws	Fails to identify fundamental problems sufficient to overturn the argument	Gives a false high rating	Strictly enforce pre-validation and the fatal-flaw veto rule
E05	Dimension Confusion	Confuses problems from different dimensions	Assessment structure is chaotic and problems cannot be located	Strictly assess dimension by dimension without skipping steps
E06	Ignoring Procedural Issues	Focuses only on substantive-law arguments and ignores procedural-law risks	Omits procedural obstacles that may prevent the argument from being realized	Add procedural compliance checks to the assessment
E07	Static Assessment	Fails to consider dynamic factors such as legal changes and policy adjustments	Assessment conclusions may quickly become outdated	Mark the timeliness of the assessment and possible change factors

7.2 Common Traps

Trap	Manifestation	Response
Authority Worship	Gives a high score because the argument cites the views of authoritative scholars	Assess the logic of the argument itself, not the identity of the arguer
Complexity Illusion	The more complex the argument, the more persuasive it seems	Complex arguments are more likely to hide logical loopholes and should be scrutinized more carefully
Quantity Bias	Gives a high score when there are many pieces of evidence	Focus on the quality of evidence rather than quantity; one strong piece of evidence is better than ten weak ones
Novelty Bias	Is overly lenient or overly harsh toward novel arguments	Evaluate novel arguments and traditional arguments by the same standard
Outcome Orientation	Gives a high score because the conclusion "seems reasonable"	Strictly assess the reasoning process, and do not relax standards because the conclusion is intuitively reasonable
Ignoring Silence	Fails to notice what is "not said" in the argument	Actively check whether the argument avoids unfavorable issues
Over-Downgrading	Completely negates the whole because one problem is found	Distinguish local problems from overall problems, and handle them by grade according to the type of weak link

VIII. Handling of Special Scenarios

8.1 Legal Gap Scenarios

当论证涉及法律空白（无直接法律规定）时：
1. 法律依据确定性维度评分上限为3分
2. 重点评估类推适用的合理性
3. 增加对法律原则、立法目的的评估权重
4. 明确标注"法律空白"风险
5. 建议关注立法动态和司法解释趋势

8.2 Novel Case Scenarios

当论证涉及新型法律问题（无先例可循）时：
1. 司法实践一致性维度标注为"不适用"或降低权重
2. 增加价值判断合理性的权重
3. 重点评估论证的内在逻辑一致性
4. 标注"新型问题，裁判结果不确定性高"
5. 建议提供多种可能的裁判方向分析

8.3 Multi-argument competition scenarios

当需要比较多个竞争性论证的强度时：
1. 对每个论证独立评估，使用相同标准
2. 制作比较表格，逐维度对比
3. 识别各论证的相对优势和劣势
4. 评估在不同裁判者面前各论证的可能表现
5. 给出"最可能被采纳的论证"判断及理由

8.4 Scenarios with incomplete evidence

当论证所依赖的事实/证据信息不完整时：
1. 明确标注哪些事实/证据信息缺失
2. 分别评估"最佳情况"和"最差情况"下的论证强度
3. 事实基础充分性维度给出区间评分（如2-4分）
4. 元置信度自动降为"低"
5. 建议补充哪些信息后可以给出更准确评估

8.5 Scenarios for evaluating the opposing argument

当评估对方（对手方）的论证强度时：
1. 保持客观立场，不因立场偏见低估对方论证
2. 重点关注对方论证中的强项（而非只找弱点）
3. 评估对方论证被法院采纳的可能性
4. 识别对方论证中可以攻击的薄弱环节
5. 为己方制定针对性反驳策略提供依据

8.6 Time-pressured scenarios

当需要快速评估时（如庭审中即时评估）：
1. 使用简要输出模板
2. 优先评估法律依据确定性和事实基础充分性两个核心维度
3. 快速扫描是否存在致命缺陷
4. 给出初步强度判断和最关键的薄弱环节
5. 标注"快速评估，建议后续深入分析"

IX. Quality Checklist

Before outputting the evaluation results, check the following checklist item by item:

9.1 Completeness check

□ 是否完成了论证解构？
□ 是否对所有六个维度都进行了评估？
□ 是否识别并标注了所有薄弱环节？
□ 是否给出了综合评分和强度等级？
□ 是否标注了元置信度？
□ 是否提供了改进建议？

9.2 Accuracy check

□ 所引用的法律规范是否经过核实？
□ 事实描述是否准确反映了原始信息？
□ 逻辑分析是否经过二次验证？
□ 评分是否与说明文字一致（无矛盾）？
□ 综合评分计算是否正确？
□ 强度等级是否与综合评分对应？

9.3 Objectivity check

□ 是否执行了"魔鬼代言人"检查？
□ 是否考虑了反面论据？
□ 评估是否受到了论证者身份/立场的不当影响？
□ 是否存在结果导向的评估倾向？
□ 对薄弱环节的标注是否公允（不夸大也不缩小）？

9.4 Practicality check

□ 评估结果是否对决策者有实际帮助？
□ 薄弱环节标注是否具体到可以采取行动？
□ 改进建议是否具有可操作性？
□ 输出格式是否清晰易读？
□ 是否避免了过于学术化而脱离实践的表述？

X. Complete Examples

Example 1: Simple scenario—labor contract termination dispute

Argument to be evaluated

Argument content: The employer's termination of the labor contract with employee Zhang on the grounds of "serious violation of rules and regulations" is lawful and valid. The reasons are as follows: (1) the company's Employee Handbook clearly provides that "continuous absenteeism for more than 3 days constitutes a serious violation of rules and regulations, and the company has the right to terminate the labor contract"; (2) Zhang did not report to work for 5 consecutive days from March 11 to March 15, 2024, constituting absenteeism; (3) according to Article 39, Item 2 of the Labor Contract Law, if an employee seriously violates the employer's rules and regulations, the employer may terminate the labor contract. Therefore, the company's termination was lawful.

Evaluation Report

Argument Strength Evaluation Report

I. Argument Overview

Evaluation subject: The legality argument for the employer's termination of the labor contract on the grounds of serious violation of rules and regulations
Core conclusion: The termination was lawful and valid
Argument type: Deductive reasoning (syllogism)
Legal field: Labor disputes

II. Argument Structure Analysis

大前提[L]：《劳动合同法》第39条第2项——严重违反规章制度可解除
    ↓
小前提1[L+A]：《员工手册》规定连续旷工3天以上=严重违反规章制度
    ↓
小前提2[F]：张某连续5天未到岗=旷工
    ↓
结论：解除合法

III. Scores by Dimension

Evaluation dimension	Score	Confidence	Brief explanation
Certainty of legal basis	4.5	[Certain]	Article 39, Item 2 of the Labor Contract Law is clearly provided and undisputed
Sufficiency of factual basis	3.0	[Uncertain]	No evidence of absenteeism (attendance records, etc.) is mentioned, nor is the reason Zhang did not report to work explained
Rigorousness of logical reasoning	3.0	[Fairly certain]	The syllogistic structure is clear, but implicit assumptions have not been verified
Resistance to rebuttals and defenses	2.0	[Fairly certain]	Multiple foreseeable important defenses were not addressed
Consistency with judicial practice	3.5	[Fairly certain]	There are many rulings in such cases, but courts scrutinize them relatively strictly
Reasonableness of value judgments	3.5	[Certain]	Balancing the employer's managerial authority and the protection of workers' rights is a routine issue

IV. Overall Assessment

Overall score: 3.1 / 5.0 (weighted calculation: weights for ordinary cases)
Strength level: 🟡 Medium
Meta-confidence: Medium—the evaluation is based on the limited information provided by the argument, and some key information is missing

V. Marking of Weak Points

Weak point 1: The legality of the rules and regulations was not argued

Type: Major weakness ★★★★☆
Location: Minor premise 1 (validity of the Employee Handbook)
Description: The argument directly cites the provisions of the Employee Handbook, but does not argue whether the rules and regulations were formulated through democratic procedures or whether they were publicized and made known to the worker. According to Article 4 of the Labor Contract Law and Article 50 of the Interpretation (I) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Labor Dispute Cases, rules and regulations must be formulated through democratic procedures and publicized before they can serve as a basis for employment management.
Impact: If the procedures for the rules and regulations are unlawful, minor premise 1 of the entire argument will not hold, and the chain of argument will break.
Repairability: High—it can be repaired by supplementing evidence of the procedures for formulating the rules and regulations and their publicization.
Repair suggestions: Supplement the following evidence: ① records of discussion by the employee representative assembly or all employees; ② records of consultation with the labor union or employee representatives; ③ evidence of publicizing/notifying Zhang (receipt records, training records, etc.).

Weak link 2: Insufficient determination of the facts of absenteeism

Type: Major weakness ★★★★☆
Location: Minor premise 2 (determination of the facts of Zhang's absenteeism)
Description: The argument only states that Zhang "did not report to work for 5 consecutive days," but does not distinguish "failure to report to work" from "absenteeism." Absenteeism refers to unauthorized absence without justified reason. If Zhang was on sick leave, had requested personal leave that was not approved, or had other justified reasons, then absenteeism is not constituted. The argument does not mention the reason Zhang did not report to work, nor does it mention evidence such as attendance records.
Impact: If Zhang had a justified reason (such as illness, a family emergency, etc.), then absenteeism is not constituted, and the conclusion of the argument does not hold.
Repairability: Medium—depends on the actual factual circumstances.
Repair suggestions: ① Supplement attendance record evidence; ② ascertain the reason Zhang did not report to work; ③ if Zhang had requested leave, explain whether the leave request was approved.

Weak link 3: Compliance of the termination procedure was not argued

Type: Moderate risk ★★★☆☆
Location: Omission in the argument (procedural requirement)
Description: The argument only focuses on the substantive requirements (whether it constitutes a serious violation of the rules and regulations) and does not argue whether the termination procedure was compliant. According to Article 43 of the Labor Contract Law, when an employer unilaterally terminates a labor contract, it should notify the labor union of the reasons in advance. Failure to notify the labor union may render the termination unlawful.
Impact: Even if the substantive requirements are met, a procedural violation may cause the termination to be found unlawful.
Repairability: High—it can be repaired by supplementing evidence of notification to the labor union.
Repair suggestions: Supplement the written record of notification to the labor union and the labor union's opinions.

Weak link 4: Failure to foresee possible defenses by the opposing party

Type: Moderate risk ★★★☆☆
Location: The argument as a whole (lack of a rebuttal plan)
Description: The argument does not foresee and respond to the following possible defenses: ① Zhang may claim that there were justified reasons; ② Zhang may claim that he did not receive the rules and regulations; ③ Zhang may claim that the company engaged in selective enforcement (other employees' absenteeism was not punished by termination); ④ Zhang may claim that the company did not give him an opportunity to present a defense.
Impact: In an adversarial setting, the argument lacks defensive depth.
Repairability: — Responses need to be prepared one by one according to the specific circumstances
Repair suggestions: Prepare response plans for each possible defense

VI. Overall Evaluation and Suggestions

The basic logical framework of the argument (syllogism) is correct, and the selection of legal basis is accurate. However, the argument suffers from the problem of "more skeleton than flesh": only the basic reasoning framework has been set up, and the key premises have not been fully argued, especially the two links of the legality of the rules and regulations and the determination of the fact of absenteeism, which have major weaknesses. In judicial practice, courts are relatively strict in reviewing an employer's termination of a labor contract on the grounds of serious violation of rules and regulations, and usually comprehensively review the legality of the rules and regulations, the sufficiency of the factual determination, and the compliance of the termination procedure.

Improvement priority:

🔴 Top priority: Supplement evidence of the democratic procedure and public disclosure/notification of the rules and regulations
🔴 Top priority: Ascertain and argue that Zhang's failure to report to work was indeed absenteeism without justified reason
🟠 Second priority: Supplement argument on the compliance of the termination procedure (notifying the labor union)
🟡 Suggestion: Anticipate and respond to the other party's possible defenses

VII. Disclaimer

The meta-confidence level of this assessment is "medium." The assessment is based on the information provided in the argument, and the complete case materials were not obtained. If materials such as documents on the procedure for formulating the rules and regulations, attendance records, termination notice, and labor union notification records are supplemented, a more accurate assessment can be conducted.

Example 2: Complex Scenario — The Right to Inspect Accounting Books in a Shareholder's Right to Know Dispute

Argument to be assessed

Argument content: Plaintiff Li (holding 10% equity in Defendant Company A) has the right to inspect Company A's accounting books. The argument is as follows:

（1）Legal basis: According to Article 57 of the Company Law (2023 revision), shareholders have the right to inspect and copy the company's accounting books. Li holds 10% equity in Company A, has shareholder status, and enjoys the right to know.

（2）Proper purpose: Li's purpose in inspecting the accounting books is to understand the company's operating conditions and profit distribution, because the company has not paid dividends for 5 consecutive years, and Li suspects that the controlling shareholder has engaged in related-party transactions that harm the company's interests. This constitutes a proper purpose.

（3）Pre-procedure has been fulfilled: Li submitted a written inspection application to Company A on January 15, 2024, explaining the purpose of inspection. Company A refused in writing on January 20, 2024, on the grounds that it "involves trade secrets."

（4）The company's reason for refusal is untenable: Company A refused on the grounds that it "involves trade secrets," but did not provide evidence to prove the specific risk that Li's inspection would lead to the disclosure of trade secrets. According to judicial practice, a company cannot refuse a shareholder's inspection merely on the vague ground of "trade secrets."

（5）Scope of inspection: Li requests to inspect all of Company A's accounting books from 2019 to 2023, including original vouchers.

In summary, the court should support Li's request to inspect Company A's accounting books.

Assessment Report

Argument Strength Assessment Report

I. Argument Summary

Assessment object: The rights argument by shareholder Li asserting the right to inspect the company's accounting books (including original vouchers)
Core conclusion: The court should support Li's request to inspect all of Company A's accounting books from 2019 to 2023 (including original vouchers)
Argument type: Comprehensive reasoning (mainly deductive reasoning, supplemented by factual argumentation and rebuttal argumentation)
Legal field: Corporate governance/shareholder's right to information

II. Analysis of Argument Structure

主论证线：
  前提1[L]：《公司法》第57条赋予股东查阅会计账簿的权利
  前提2[F]：李某是A公司持股10%的股东
  前提3[F+L]：李某具有正当目的（连续5年未分红+怀疑关联交易）
  前提4[F]：李某已履行书面申请前置程序
      ↓
  中间结论：李某享有查阅会计账簿的权利，且已满足行使条件

反驳论证线：
  前提5[F+L]：A公司拒绝理由为"涉及商业秘密"
  前提6[L]：笼统的商业秘密抗辩不足以拒绝
      ↓
  中间结论：A公司拒绝理由不成立

范围论证线[A]：
  前提7[隐含假设]：查阅范围包括原始凭证
  前提8[隐含假设]：查阅时间跨度5年合理
      ↓
  最终结论：法院应支持李某查阅2019-2023年全部会计账簿（含原始凭证）

III. Scores by Dimension

Assessment Dimension	Score	Confidence	Brief Explanation
Certainty of Legal Basis	4.0	[Relatively certain]	Article 57 of the Company Law is clear, but whether "accounting books" includes original vouchers is disputed
Sufficiency of Factual Basis	4.0	[Relatively certain]	The facts such as shareholder status, written application, and company refusal are clear, but the sufficiency of evidence for "proper purpose" remains to be assessed
Rigorousness of Logical Reasoning	3.5	[Relatively certain]	The main argument line is logically clear, but the scope argument line contains implicit assumptions that are not fully argued
Strength of Rebuttal Against Defenses	3.5	[Relatively certain]	It effectively responds to the trade secret defense, but does not anticipate other possible defenses
Consistency with Judicial Practice	3.5	[Uncertain]	Courts generally take a supportive attitude in cases involving shareholder's right to information, but there are divergent rulings on the right to inspect original vouchers
Reasonableness of Value Judgment	4.0	[Certain]	Protecting the information rights of minority shareholders is consistent with the legislative purpose of the Company Law and the direction of judicial policy

IV. Comprehensive Assessment

Comprehensive score: 3.7 / 5.0
Strength level: 🟢 Strong
Meta-confidence: Medium—judicial practice after the 2023 revision of the Company Law is still taking shape, and some assessments are based on adjudication experience before the revision

V. Marking of Weak Points

Weak point 1: Dispute over the legal basis for the right to inspect original vouchers

Type: Moderate risk ★★★☆☆
Location: Scope argument line—Premise 7 (the scope of inspection includes original vouchers)
Description: Article 57 of the Company Law as revised in 2023 provides that shareholders may "inspect and copy" the company's accounting books, but whether the extension of "accounting books" includes original vouchers (bookkeeping vouchers, original documents, etc.) is disputed in theory and practice. Article 10 of the Judicial Interpretation (IV) of the Company Law before the revision limited the scope of inspection to "accounting books," and some courts held that original vouchers do not belong to accounting books. After the 2023 revision, Article 57, Paragraph 2 of the new Company Law added the expression "accounting vouchers," but its specific application still awaits clarification in judicial practice. The argument directly includes original vouchers within the scope of inspection without fully arguing this dispute.
Impact: The court may support inspection of accounting books but not inspection of original vouchers, resulting in part of the claim being dismissed
Repairability: High
Repair suggestions: ① Explicitly cite the provision on "accounting vouchers" in Article 57, Paragraph 2 of the new Company Law; ② cite adjudication cases supporting inspection of original vouchers; ③ argue that not inspecting original vouchers would render the right to information meaningless (because merely looking at the books cannot verify authenticity); ④ if necessary, layer the claims: the primary request includes original vouchers, and the alternative request is limited to accounting books

Weak point 2: Insufficient argument for the reasonableness of the inspection time span

Type: Minor defect ★★☆☆☆
Location: Scope argument line—Premise 8 (5-year review time span)
Description: The argument requests access to accounting books for the 5 years from 2019 to 2023, but does not justify the reasonableness of this time span. Although the law does not explicitly limit the time range for access, some courts will examine whether the scope of access matches the purpose asserted by the shareholder. If the legitimate purpose is to understand recent operating conditions and profit distribution, whether a 5-year span is necessary needs to be explained.
Impact: The court may narrow the time range for access
Repairability: High
Repair suggestions: Supplement the argument: ①The company has not distributed dividends for 5 consecutive years, so it is necessary to review the accounting books for these 5 years to understand the profit situation; ②The suspected related-party transactions may span multiple years, and data for the complete time period is needed to discover them

Weak link 3: Evidentiary support for legitimate purpose

Type: Medium risk ★★★☆☆
Location: Main argument line—Premise 3 (legitimate purpose)
Description: The argument claims that Li's legitimate purpose includes "suspicion that the controlling shareholder engaged in related-party transactions that harmed the company's interests," but it is only "suspicion," and it does not explain whether there is preliminary evidence supporting that suspicion. According to judicial practice, although a shareholder need not prove that related-party transactions actually exist, it is necessary to provide a preliminary basis for reasonable suspicion. If related-party transactions are suspected merely on the basis of "5 consecutive years without dividends," the strength of the argument may be insufficient.
Impact: If the court finds the argument on legitimate purpose insufficient, it may reject the access request
Repairability: Medium—depends on whether there is preliminary evidence
Repair suggestions: ①Supplement preliminary clues for suspecting related-party transactions (such as related-party information in public information, feedback from other shareholders, etc.); ②Emphasize that "5 consecutive years without dividends" itself constitutes a basis for reasonable suspicion; ③Cite cases in which courts adopt a lenient review standard for "legitimate purpose"

Weak link 4: Other unforeseen defenses

Type: Medium risk ★★★☆☆
Location: Rebuttal argument line (incomplete)
Description: The argument responds only to the "trade secrets" defense, but Company A may raise other defenses: ①Li is in a horizontal competition relationship with the company (improper purpose); ②Li previously leaked company information obtained to a third party; ③Li's true purpose in accessing the books is to collect evidence for litigation (some courts have differing attitudes on this); ④Li's shareholder status is disputed (such as in a shareholding-on-behalf arrangement).
Impact: If the other party raises the above defenses and has evidence to support them, the argument may face challenges
Repairability: Medium—needs to be prepared one by one according to the actual situation
Repair suggestions: ①Verify whether Li is engaged in horizontal competition, and if so, make a special argument; ②Prepare a plan for Li to sign a confidentiality undertaking; ③Confirm that Li's shareholder status is not disputed

Weak link 5: The temporal effect of the application of the new Company Law

Type: Potential hidden risk ★☆☆☆☆
Location: Premise 1 (legal basis)
Description: The argument cites Article 57 of the Company Law amended in 2023, which took effect on July 1, 2024. If the inspection request involved in the case occurred before the new law took effect (the argument mentions that an application was submitted in January 2024), there may be an issue of transition between the old and new laws. However, the right to information is a continuing right, and the new law provides stronger protection for shareholder information rights, so applying the new law is more favorable to the plaintiff.
Impact: The impact is relatively small, but the opposing party may use this to raise a procedural objection
Repairability: High
Repair suggestions: ① Confirm whether the new Company Law had already taken effect at the time of case trial; ② if necessary, cite the relevant provisions of both the old and new Company Law; ③ argue the continuing nature of the right to information

VI. Overall Evaluation and Recommendations

The argument is generally of good quality and has the following strengths: (1) the legal basis is chosen accurately, and Article 57 of the Company Law is the direct legal basis; (2) the argument structure is complete, covering the four levels of rights basis, legitimate purpose, preconditions, and rebuttal of defenses; (3) the response to the company's "commercial secrets" defense is strong.

The main risks are concentrated in two aspects: the scope of inspection (especially original vouchers) and the evidentiary support for legitimate purpose. Recommendations:

Improvement priority:

🟠 Priority: strengthen the legal argument for the right to inspect original vouchers, and make full use of Article 57, Paragraph 2 of the new Company Law
🟠 Priority: supplement the preliminary evidentiary support for legitimate purpose
🟡 Suggested: anticipate and prepare to respond to other possible defenses such as horizontal competition
🟡 Suggested: argue the reasonableness of the time span of inspection
⚪ Optional: address the issue of transition between the old and new laws

Litigation strategy recommendation: Consider designing the claims in layers—the primary request includes original vouchers, and the alternative request is limited to accounting books and accounting vouchers, to ensure that at least partial support is obtained.

VII. Disclaimer

The meta-confidence level of this assessment is "medium." After the 2023 amendment to the Company Law, judicial practice regarding shareholder information rights is still taking shape, and part of the assessment is based on adjudication experience and doctrinal analysis before the amendment. It is recommended to pay attention to supporting judicial interpretations subsequently issued by the Supreme People's Court as well as typical cases after the implementation of the new law. This assessment did not obtain the complete evidentiary materials of the case, and the assessment of the sufficiency of the factual basis may be adjusted depending on the actual evidence.

Appendix: Quick Reference Card

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│           论证强度评估·快速参考卡              │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 六维度：法律依据｜事实基础｜逻辑严密          │
│         反驳抗辩｜司法实践｜价值判断          │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 五等级：极强(4.5+)｜强(3.5+)｜中等(2.5+)    │
│         弱(1.5+)  ｜极弱(1.0+)              │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 否决规则：                                    │
│ · 法律依据或事实基础=1 → 整体≤弱            │
│ · 两个维度≤2 → 整体≤中等                    │
│ · 刑事案件事实≤3 → 自动降一级               │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 必查项：                                      │
│ ✓ 法条是否现行有效                           │
│ ✓ 是否存在致命反驳                           │
│ ✓ 隐含假设是否成立                           │
│ ✓ 程序要件是否满足                           │
│ ✓ 元置信度是否标注                           │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────┘

About this skill

Overview Table

Legal Disclaimer

I. Core Concepts

1.1 What Is Argument Strength

1.2 Constitutive Dimensions of Argument Strength

1.3 Relationship between argument strength and confidence

1.4 Typology of weak links

II. Complete workflow

Phase 1: Argument Deconstruction

Phase 2: Dimensional Assessment

Phase 3: Synthesis

Phase Four: Meta-Assessment

III. Comparison of Common Fields and Legal Sources

IV. Verification and Screening Rules

4.1 Pre-verification of Argument Validity

4.2 Screening Rules for Assessment Results

V. Output Format Templates

5.1 Standard Output Template

5.2 Brief Output Template (for embedding in other analyses)

VI. Confidence Annotation System

6.1 Dimension Score Confidence

6.2 Template for Explaining Overall Assessment Confidence

VII. Common Errors and Prevention

7.1 Fatal Error Table

7.2 Common Traps

VIII. Handling of Special Scenarios

8.1 Legal Gap Scenarios

8.2 Novel Case Scenarios

8.3 Multi-argument competition scenarios

8.4 Scenarios with incomplete evidence

8.5 Scenarios for evaluating the opposing argument

8.6 Time-pressured scenarios

IX. Quality Checklist

9.1 Completeness check

9.2 Accuracy check

9.3 Objectivity check

9.4 Practicality check

X. Complete Examples

Example 1: Simple scenario—labor contract termination dispute

Argument to be evaluated

Evaluation Report

Example 2: Complex Scenario — The Right to Inspect Accounting Books in a Shareholder's Right to Know Dispute

Argument to be assessed

Assessment Report

Appendix: Quick Reference Card