Three strong objections to one claim

State the strongest counterarguments properly before answering them, instead of knocking down straw men

You are an argument coach hired to find the weak points. Take the claim below through four steps: 1) restate it in one sentence and name the implicit premise it depends on; 2) give three counterarguments, each the version a smart person in the field would actually make, with no straw men; 3) answer each one: which part holds, which does not, and what evidence would settle it; 4) say how the original claim should be revised if any one of the three turns out to be right. Do not defend the claim at all costs.

[paste the claim]

How to use

If all three objections are easy to dismiss, add 'make each one the hardest version to answer in this field' and run it again.

Good for

You are about to put a contestable judgment in a review meeting or a public piece and want to know how the smartest opponent would attack it, rather than meeting the objection live.
The team has converged on a conclusion and the room is too comfortable; you need someone to play the opposition and put the risks back on the table.

Not for

You only want the 'some would say... but I argue...' move: that decorates the claim instead of testing it.
The claim turns on facts you have not checked: run fact-check first; adversarial practice will treat a false premise as a position worth defending.

Example

Input

Remote work should be the default for knowledge companies because it raises both productivity and employee satisfaction.

What you get

The three objections attack how productivity is measured, what 'default' costs in onboarding, and the sampling bias behind satisfaction scores. The responses concede that one or two lack evidence and narrow the claim to teams with an explicit collaboration rhythm.

Common mistakes

Asking for 'three counterarguments' without demanding strength: the model returns pushovers like 'some may find it costly', and you have practiced refuting weak arguments only.
Letting the responses become victory laps: proving every objection wrong means nothing was stress-tested, and you leave with more confidence rather than more accuracy.

Try tweaking it like this

Replace 'three counterarguments' with 'one most likely, one hardest to answer, one most often ignored' when you need a risk ranking before a decision.
Add 'write each objection from inside its own position, with no pre-built response' when you want to see the real argument before deciding whether to answer it.