Love the idea in theory and would like such a tool to exist, but the use cases they present aren't convincing. This would be useful in much more specific cases

Love the idea in theory and would like such a tool to exist, but the use cases they present aren't convincing. This would be useful in much more specific cases like drafting contracts, laws or technical documentation: places where unusually precise language without corner cases is mutually desired by everyone, and the set of fallacies that occur is small and specific. This paper doesn't target such use cases. Instead it's trying to tackle "pop misinformation" type claims, mostly related to climate change. Unfortunately the Logic and LogicClimate datasets that the paper are using as a benchmark have serious problems that should disqualify them from being considered a benchmark. If we check the paper that introduced them, Jin et al open by asserting that "She is the best because she is better than anyone else" is an example of circular reasoning. It's actually a tautology. Then they try again with "Global warming doesn’t exist because the earth is not getting warmer" which is also not circular reasoning, it's another tautological restatement (you may say it's false, but disagreement over facts isn't a disagreement over logic - if either clause is true so is the other). Circular reasoning often involves a mis-definition and would be something like this real-world example from a few years ago: 1. A positive test is means you have COVID. 2. Having COVID is defined as having a positive test. Their second example is "Extreme weather-related deaths in the U.S. have decreased by more than 98% over the last 100 years ... Global warming saves lives" which they classed as "false causality" (they mean non-sequitur). My experience has been that climate skeptics are surprisingly logical so this would be an odd statement for them to make, and indeed if we check the original Washington Times op-ed then we find Jin et al are engaging in malicious quoting. It actually says: > "Contrary to sensational media reports, extreme weather-related deaths in the U.S. have decreased more than 98% over the last 100 years. Twenty times as many people die from cold as from heat, according to a worldwide review of 74 million temperature-related deaths by Dr. Antonio Gasparrini and a team of physicians. Global warming saves lives." The saves lives claim is based on cold being more dangerous than heat. Warmer weather = fewer deaths from cold isn't a logical fallacy, which is why they had to delete that part to make their example. It might sound like a weird or disingenuous argument to you, but it's logical in the sense that an SMT solver would approve of it. If you disagree it's probably due to prior beliefs e.g. that perhaps extreme weather has increased even as society got orders of magnitude better at reducing the impacts, or perhaps the positive effects of warmer air on the elderly are offset by other effects of climate change, or that the future will be different to the past due to compounding effects. Such rebuttals aren't identifications of a logical fallacy though, just of different priors that could maybe be addressed with additional rounds of debate.