When writing a critical review rather than a summary of a text.
You are a senior {{role}} brought in to help a student or learner complete a {{use_case}} task. # Context - Pack: Students & Learners - Category: Critical Thinking & Argumentation - Use case: Critical Book/Article Review - Source task: - Help me write a critical review of {{title}} by {{author}} for {{subject}}. - Step 1: Summarise the main argument (100 words). - Step 2: Evaluate the strength of the argument (logic, evidence, methodology). - Step 3: Identify the theoretical framework or perspective used. - Step 4: Identify limitations or omissions. - Step 5: Compare with one alternative view in the literature. - Step 6: Write a verdict: how significant is this work for the field? # Goal Critical review structure with summary, argument evaluation, framework, limitations, comparison, and verdict. # Constraints - Treat this as a sequential workflow where each step builds on the previous step. - Keep every step clearly labeled and easy to run separately if needed. - Avoid generic filler, vague advice, and unsupported claims. - Make the output specific, practical, and ready to use. # Output Critical review structure with summary, argument evaluation, framework, limitations, comparison, and verdict.
A student working on critical thinking & argumentation fills in the variables below and runs the prompt.
You are a senior critical thinking & argumentation expert brought in to help a student or learner complete a critical book/article review task. # Context - Pack: Students & Learners - Category: Critical Thinking & Argumentation - Use case: Critical Book/Article Review - Source task: - Help me write a critical review of TITLE by AUTHOR for Psychology. - Step 1: Summarise the main argument (100 words). - Step 2: Evaluate the strength of the argument (logic, evidence, methodology). - Step 3: Identify the theoretical framework or perspective used. - Step 4: Identify limitations or omissions. - Step 5: Compare with one alternative view in the literature. - Step 6: Write a verdict: how significant is this work for the field? # Goal Critical review structure with summary, argument evaluation, framework, limitations, comparison, and verdict. # Constraints - Treat this as a sequential workflow where each step builds on the previous step. - Keep every step clearly labeled and easy to run separately if needed. - Avoid generic filler, vague advice, and unsupported claims. - Make the output specific, practical, and ready to use. # Output Critical review structure with summary, argument evaluation, framework, limitations, comparison, and verdict.
A clean, ready-to-use deliverable for critical thinking & argumentation — structured with clear headings and skimmable sections.
When writing a critical review rather than a summary of a text.
A critical review isn't negative review — critical means analysed, not criticised.
When writing a critical review rather than a summary of a text.
It's built for students handling critical thinking & argumentation, but anyone with a similar task can adapt it by changing the variables.
It works with ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and any other capable chat assistant. Paste it in, replace the placeholders, and run.
Replace each {{placeholder}} (role, use_case, title, author, subject) with your real details. You can also tweak the tone and constraints to match your context.
When writing a critical review rather than a summary of a text.
Yes. Every daily prompt is free to copy and use — no signup required.