Basic Strength Classification problems present an argument for or against a proposition. You must determine whether the argument is strong (logically sound, relevant, and evidence-based) or weak (emotional, vague, irrelevant, or lacking evidence). These problems form the foundation of critical reasoning.

Logical Validity Assessment problems require you to evaluate whether an argument contains logical flaws or fallacies. You must identify errors in reasoning such as affirming the consequent, false dilemmas, hasty generalizations, slippery slopes, and other logical fallacies.

Evidence-Based Strength Evaluation problems focus on the quality, relevance, and sufficiency of evidence provided in an argument. You must assess whether the evidence is specific, credible, relevant, and sufficient to support the conclusion.

Contextual Strength Assessment problems present arguments within specific contexts (corporate boardroom, city council, personal decision, etc.). The strength of an argument depends on its relevance and appropriateness to that particular context. What works in one context may be weak in another.

Comparative Argument Analysis problems present two arguments on the same issue. You must analyze both and determine which argument is stronger, or whether they have similar strength. These problems test your ability to evaluate and compare multiple perspectives.

Multi-Criteria Strength Analysis problems require evaluating arguments across multiple criteria simultaneously, such as evidence quality, relevance, comprehensiveness, logical validity, and practical applicability. You must assess overall strength based on performance across all criteria.

Analogical Reasoning Assessment problems involve arguments that use analogies (comparing two situations to draw a conclusion). You must evaluate whether the analogy is valid by identifying relevant similarities and differences between the two situations.

Causal Reasoning Evaluation problems involve arguments that claim one thing causes another. You must evaluate whether the causal claim is justified, identify causal fallacies, and recognize alternative explanations.

Counterfactual Reasoning problems require you to evaluate causal claims by considering what would have happened in the absence of the alleged cause. This 'what if' thinking is essential for proper causal inference and policy evaluation.

Argument Mapping problems require you to identify the components of an argument (premises and conclusion) and understand how they relate. You must recognize the conclusion (what the argument tries to prove) and the premises (evidence supporting it).

Statistical Reasoning problems involve arguments that use statistics, probabilities, or data. You must evaluate whether the statistical evidence is used correctly, identify common statistical fallacies (base rate neglect, small sample bias, etc.), and assess the strength of probabilistic claims.

Rebuttal Selection problems present an argument followed by several potential counterarguments. You must select the strongest rebuttal that most effectively weakens or refutes the original argument.

Inductive vs Deductive problems require you to classify arguments by type (inductive or deductive) and understand the different criteria for evaluating each type. Deductive arguments aim for logical necessity (validity), while inductive arguments aim for probability (strength).