Critical Writing · IBAC
Build the logic first, then write with a complete argument
Critical Writing · IBAC
Build the logic first, then write with a complete argument
Showcase
Description
Many articles lack depth not because of the writing, but because the author has not fully clarified what question they are answering or why their conclusion follows. This skill uses Tian Hongyun’s critical writing structure, IBAC— I: Issue, B: major premise (hidden assumptions and beliefs), A: minor premise (facts and evidence), and C: Conclusion—to first narrow a topic into an arguable question, then create an IBAC argument map and pause for your confirmation. Once confirmed, it turns the framework into a complete argumentative essay, along with a hand-drawn marker-style structure diagram and an IBAC self-checklist that identifies, point by point, where premises remain weak and where evidence is missing. It does not embellish or fabricate: wherever evidence is insufficient, it writes “evidence needed” rather than glossing over the gap with rhetoric. Suitable for academic writing, science communication, workplace writing, and independent media, with flexible use across contexts.
Recommended by
Shuting@YouMind
Why we love this skill
IBAC clarifies the question, assumptions, evidence, and conclusion before drafting, visualizing, and checking each step for clear, verifiable reasoning.
Best for
Students, researchers, and content creators who need to organize complex ideas, strengthen their reasoning, and write argumentative essays.
How to use this Skill
Provide your input
Provide a writing prompt, claim to examine, or background material. You can also include style requirements and any evidence you already have.
Run the Skill
The skill organizes the question, premises, evidence, and conclusion, then builds an argument structure for you to review. After confirmation, it completes the article and checks for evidence gaps.
Review your result
Receive a clear argumentative essay, a hand-drawn-style argument diagram, and a self-checklist marking weak points.
Related Skills
View all
ResearchFour-Step Critical Reading
When reading a book, paper, or report, the hardest part is often not understanding the words, but explaining what the author is really saying—and why they believe it. Based on Tian Hongyun’s *Critical Thinking in Plain English: From Beginner to Master*, this skill uses a four-step critical reading method to break down a passage: ① Clear up terminology and background obstacles; ② Use a text logic tree and a hand-drawn cartoon to map its underlying logic; ③ Create an analytical argument table identifying the issues, conclusion, premises, and unstated premises; ④ Create a commentary argument table to assess whether the premises are true and whether they support the conclusion. It then provides a credibility assessment of the conclusion and a list of knowledge that still needs to be added. It knows when not to overdo it: only texts that genuinely express a viewpoint go through all four steps, while purely explanatory or narrative texts go through the first two steps only. Suitable for papers, commentary, reports, policy texts, book passages, and any other material that calls for close reading, helping you move from “opening a book and counting it as reading” to genuine deep reading.
Write1 Post->3-7 Unexpected Topics
😤 Do you feel this too— You scroll through viral articles for an hour, save seven or eight, and feel like you've "learned." But when you sit down to come up with topics—your mind goes blank. Hundreds of articles in your bookmarks, and not one of them turns into your own content. You're not lacking material; you're lacking a method to "extract your own topics from others' viral posts." 🔍 Where's the problem— Inside every 100,000+ viral article, there are a few viewpoints that "most people nod along with, but actually don't hold up." Most people scroll past them. A few people pick these views out, think in reverse—and a new topic is born. The gap is in this one "deconstruction" action. 🛠️ How it helps you— 📥 Drop in a viral article link 🔬 Automatically scans the full text, picks out common consensus that "sounds right, but the conditions for truth are quietly stripped away" ❓ Dives into three key questions for each: ① Under what circumstances is it false? ② What does it oversimplify? ③ Which context did it sneak in from? 🔄 Reverses into 3–7 counterintuitive topic ideas 📊 Each comes with a complete output: ✅ Logical path — why this topic holds up ✅ Emotional hook audience — who it's for, what hits them ✅ Risk boundary — where you might go wrong ✅ 5‑dimensional viral score — how hard this topic can hit It doesn't give you a bunch of directions to think about; it gives you topics you can start writing on right away. ✍️ 🚀 Give it a try— Search for "1 Post->3-7 Unexpected Topics" in YouMind. Open it and drop a link to a viral article you've seen recently, and it will walk you through deconstructing it into topics. 🗂️ Supports deep dives on single articles + batch filtering 📎 Opinion pieces, experience sharing, tutorials, lists—works with any article type
ResearchThesis Topic & Intro v3.2
Read in 10 seconds: turn a vague observation into a defensible topic, then into an introduction that can pass review. Throughout, it uses only the real materials you provide — no fabricated references. Trigger words: thesis topic, topic selection, introduction, research gap, academic writing, thesis proposal, topic selection before literature review. Applies to: journal papers / dissertations / conference papers / course papers, across all disciplines — humanities and social sciences, STEM, agriculture, medicine, and life sciences. Up and running in 3 minutes: lock in your discipline and starting point → shape the topic layer by layer → strict evidence-chain gate → module-by-module introduction → ratchet finalization. [Division of labor with other skills] The health check comes first, writing comes after, and polishing comes last. This skill handles the middle stretch: topic shaping + introduction draft. It does not write the full paper (that's the Academic Paper Full-Process Writing System v4.x), and it does not polish language sentence by sentence (that's the Academic Paper Three-Track Polishing System v8.x). [Six gates] 1. Discipline placement: classify into one of four categories — 1A humanities/arts, 1B social sciences, 2A STEM, 2B agriculture/medicine/life sciences — and load the corresponding red-line norms; for category 2B, ethics review status is always checked. 2. Stage positioning: are you at a vague observation, have a unit but no angle, have an object but no theory, lack a method, lack a viewpoint, or only lack an introduction? Start from the corresponding gate instead of starting over from scratch. 3. Topic shaping: research unit → dimension compass → theoretical perspective → research method → research viewpoint, locked layer by layer; before locking each layer, first judge whether the previous layer holds. 4. Strict evidence-chain gate: before the introduction, your references are registered into an M1/M2… material library, each entry verified on four elements — author/year/title/locator; if fewer than 3 references are registered in the conversation, the system refuses to generate the research-gap statement — not a downgrade, a refusal. 5. Module-by-module generation: the introduction is produced in five inverted-pyramid modules, and each module must be annotated with citation numbers [Mn]; no source, no sentence. 6. Ratchet finalization: only versions that have passed receive credit; qualifying modules are locked and no longer changed; scores only go up, never down. [Deliverables] A '[Topic Keyword] · Topic & Introduction' document + a sentence-level traceable citation mapping table + a ⚠️ to-verify checklist + an AFP archive code. The archive code works across four systems — the proposal health-checker, the v4.x full-process system, and the three-track polishing system — so switching skills doesn't require re-stating your discipline, topic, journal, or material library. [Explicitly not done] It does not fabricate authors, years, volumes, issues, page numbers, or DOIs; any bibliographic records retrieved online are marked ⚠️ to-verify and can only be written into the reference list after you verify them; it makes no promises of acceptance or passing review. Authorship and responsibility are yours — please verify every citation and data point.
Information
- Version
- v4
- Last updated
- Runtime credits
- Usage-based
- Models
- Auto
- Use cases
- Writing & contentResearch & analysisLearning & education
- What you get
- ArticleReportImage
- Visual styles
- Hand-drawn
