How It Works - ArguMentor

	Relevance	Logical Structure	Clarity	Depth	Objectivity	Creativity
1	No relevance to the question; completely off-topic.	Multiple logical fallacies; the structure is chaotic and incoherent.	Incoherent language; ideas are very difficult or impossible to follow.	Superficial treatment with no exploration of underlying complexities.	Extremely biased with no acknowledgment of alternative views.	Entirely derivative with no indication of original thought.
2	Minimal relevance with little connection to the question.	Several significant logical gaps; many invalid or missing connections.	Severely disorganized and obscure expression impede understanding.	Fails to address significant aspects; very limited exploration.	Heavily one-sided; relies on misleading or straw man arguments.	Minimal creativity; only slight deviations from conventional approaches.
3	Some relevance but largely fails to address key aspects.	Some logical connections are present, but notable errors or omissions weaken the structure.	Frequent unclear sections; the message is partially lost in disjointed delivery.	Basic surface-level analysis with minimal insight into complexities.	Clearly biased, though there is some minimal acknowledgment of other perspectives.	Some new phrasing or concepts, but largely unoriginal in ideas.
4	Limited relevance; partially addresses the main issue.	Basic logical structure exists, though weak links or minor errors are evident.	Some clear expression is available, but overall layout and phrasing are disjointed.	Initial exploration present, but key dimensions remain underdeveloped.	Attempts to balance differing views, but the treatment is uneven and somewhat skewed.	Occasional creative sparks that emerge inconsistently across the argument.
5	Moderately relevant; addresses the question in parts.	Adequate flow in reasoning; most connections are clear, though further strengthening may be needed.	Generally understandable language; some areas could benefit from conciseness.	Adequate coverage of the main aspects with a reasonable level of insight.	Provides a fair presentation of opposing perspectives with balanced coverage.	Moderately creative; introduces fresh ideas in parts of the argument.
6	Generally relevant; mostly on-topic but could be more focused.	Good logical progression with only minor inconsistencies in connections.	Clear and articulate expression with occasional verbosity.	Good analysis that examines multiple angles, albeit with room for deeper exploration.	Engages counterarguments with sincerity; minor imbalances are present.	Distinctive perspective with noticeable originality in analysis.
7	Very relevant; clearly addresses the central question.	Well-structured argument with coherent and sound reasoning.	Precisely articulated ideas with effective organization and appropriate conciseness.	Insightful and thoughtful analysis that addresses less-obvious implications.	Demonstrates nuanced analysis with thoughtful consideration of multiple viewpoints.	Highly creative framework that offers fresh and compelling angles.
8	Highly relevant; directly addresses the question with clear connection.	Very strong logical framework; arguments are sophisticated with robust connections.	Exceptionally clear and structured; minor enhancements may be possible.	Advanced depth with creative and novel perspectives that enhance understanding.	Exhibits exceptional fairness and thorough evaluation of all relevant alternatives.	Innovative approach that challenges standard thinking with bold insights.
9	Extremely relevant; tightly aligns with the question and explores nuanced aspects.	Expert-level logical construction; nuances are addressed with very few issues.	Masterful clarity in presentation, significantly enhancing persuasiveness.	Groundbreaking exploration; deep and complex aspects are thoroughly examined.	Masterfully synthesizes competing perspectives with insightful integration.	Revolutionary creativity; transforms the perspective and approach markedly.
10	Exceptionally relevant; masterfully addresses the question with precise focus.	Flawless logic and structure with complete clarity and precision.	Perfect clarity and optimal information density throughout.	Comprehensive and definitive treatment; all dimensions are exhaustively explored.	Paragon of objectivity; presents an entirely balanced and equitable analysis.	Unprecedented and groundbreaking creativity that defines new paradigms.

1

No relevance to the question; completely off-topic.

Multiple logical fallacies; the structure is chaotic and incoherent.

Incoherent language; ideas are very difficult or impossible to follow.

Superficial treatment with no exploration of underlying complexities.

Extremely biased with no acknowledgment of alternative views.

Entirely derivative with no indication of original thought.

2

Minimal relevance with little connection to the question.

Several significant logical gaps; many invalid or missing connections.

Severely disorganized and obscure expression impede understanding.

Fails to address significant aspects; very limited exploration.

Heavily one-sided; relies on misleading or straw man arguments.

Minimal creativity; only slight deviations from conventional approaches.

3

Some relevance but largely fails to address key aspects.

Some logical connections are present, but notable errors or omissions weaken the structure.

Frequent unclear sections; the message is partially lost in disjointed delivery.

Basic surface-level analysis with minimal insight into complexities.

Clearly biased, though there is some minimal acknowledgment of other perspectives.

Some new phrasing or concepts, but largely unoriginal in ideas.

4

Limited relevance; partially addresses the main issue.

Basic logical structure exists, though weak links or minor errors are evident.

Some clear expression is available, but overall layout and phrasing are disjointed.

Initial exploration present, but key dimensions remain underdeveloped.

Attempts to balance differing views, but the treatment is uneven and somewhat skewed.

Occasional creative sparks that emerge inconsistently across the argument.

5

Moderately relevant; addresses the question in parts.

Adequate flow in reasoning; most connections are clear, though further strengthening may be needed.

Generally understandable language; some areas could benefit from conciseness.

Adequate coverage of the main aspects with a reasonable level of insight.

Provides a fair presentation of opposing perspectives with balanced coverage.

Moderately creative; introduces fresh ideas in parts of the argument.

6

Generally relevant; mostly on-topic but could be more focused.

Good logical progression with only minor inconsistencies in connections.

Clear and articulate expression with occasional verbosity.

Good analysis that examines multiple angles, albeit with room for deeper exploration.

Engages counterarguments with sincerity; minor imbalances are present.

Distinctive perspective with noticeable originality in analysis.

7

Very relevant; clearly addresses the central question.

Well-structured argument with coherent and sound reasoning.

Precisely articulated ideas with effective organization and appropriate conciseness.

Insightful and thoughtful analysis that addresses less-obvious implications.

Demonstrates nuanced analysis with thoughtful consideration of multiple viewpoints.

Highly creative framework that offers fresh and compelling angles.

8

Highly relevant; directly addresses the question with clear connection.

Very strong logical framework; arguments are sophisticated with robust connections.

Exceptionally clear and structured; minor enhancements may be possible.

Advanced depth with creative and novel perspectives that enhance understanding.

Exhibits exceptional fairness and thorough evaluation of all relevant alternatives.

Innovative approach that challenges standard thinking with bold insights.

9

Extremely relevant; tightly aligns with the question and explores nuanced aspects.

Expert-level logical construction; nuances are addressed with very few issues.

Masterful clarity in presentation, significantly enhancing persuasiveness.

Groundbreaking exploration; deep and complex aspects are thoroughly examined.

Masterfully synthesizes competing perspectives with insightful integration.

Revolutionary creativity; transforms the perspective and approach markedly.

10

Exceptionally relevant; masterfully addresses the question with precise focus.

Flawless logic and structure with complete clarity and precision.

Perfect clarity and optimal information density throughout.

Comprehensive and definitive treatment; all dimensions are exhaustively explored.

Paragon of objectivity; presents an entirely balanced and equitable analysis.

Unprecedented and groundbreaking creativity that defines new paradigms.

⚔️