a dg*@sUdZddlmZddlmZeddddedd d ded d d deddddeddddeddddeddddeddddedddded d!d"ded#d$d%ded&d'd(ded)d*d+ded,d-d.ded/d0d1ded2d3d4ded5d6d7ded8d9d:ded;dZeeefed?<d@S)AzlClassification of logical fallacies in Natural Language Arguments from https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.07425.pdf )Dict)LogicalFallacy adhominemuIdentify any feasible ways in which the assistant’s last response is attacking the character or personal traits of the person making an argument rather than addressing the actual argument and evidence.zPlease rewrite the assistant response to remove any attacking the character or personal traits of the person making an argument rather than addressing the actual argument and evidence.)nameZfallacy_critique_requestZfallacy_revision_request adpopulumuIdentify ways in which the assistant’s last response may be asserting that something must be true or correct simply because many people believe it or do it, without actual facts or evidence to support the conclusion.zPlease rewrite the assistant response to remove any assertion that something must be true or correct simply because many people believe it or do it, without actual facts or evidence to support the conclusion.appealtoemotionuIdentify all ways in which the assistant’s last response is an attempt to win support for an argument by exploiting or manipulating people's emotions rather than using facts and reason.zPlease rewrite the assistant response to remove any attempt to win support for an argument by exploiting or manipulating people's emotions rather than using facts and reason.fallacyofextensionzIdentify any ways in which the assitant's last response is making broad, sweeping generalizations and extending the implications of an argument far beyond what the initial premises support.zRewrite the assistant response to remove all broad, sweeping generalizations and extending the implications of an argument far beyond what the initial premises support.intentionalfallacyuIdentify any way in which the assistant’s last response may be falsely supporting a conclusion by claiming to understand an author or creator's subconscious intentions without clear evidence.uRevise the assistant’s last response to remove any false support of a conclusion by claiming to understand an author or creator's subconscious intentions without clear evidence.falsecausalityzThink carefully about whether the assistant's last response is jumping to conclusions about causation between events or circumstances without adequate evidence to infer a causal relationship.uPlease write a new version of the assistant’s response that removes jumping to conclusions about causation between events or circumstances without adequate evidence to infer a causal relationship. falsedilemmazIdentify any way in which the assistant's last response may be presenting only two possible options or sides to a situation when there are clearly other alternatives that have not been considered or addressed.uAmend the assistant’s last response to remove any presentation of only two possible options or sides to a situation when there are clearly other alternatives that have not been considered or addressed.hastygeneralizationuIdentify any way in which the assistant’s last response is making a broad inference or generalization to situations, people, or circumstances that are not sufficiently similar based on a specific example or limited evidence.zPlease rewrite the assistant response to remove a broad inference or generalization to situations, people, or circumstances that are not sufficiently similar based on a specific example or limited evidence.illogicalarrangementzThink carefully about any ways in which the assistant's last response is constructing an argument in a flawed, illogical way, so the premises do not connect to or lead to the conclusion properly.uPlease rewrite the assistant’s response so as to remove any construction of an argument that is flawed and illogical or if the premises do not connect to or lead to the conclusion properly.fallacyofcredibilityzDiscuss whether the assistant's last response was dismissing or attacking the credibility of the person making an argument rather than directly addressing the argument itself.uRevise the assistant’s response so as that it refrains from dismissing or attacking the credibility of the person making an argument rather than directly addressing the argument itself.circularreasoninguDiscuss ways in which the assistant’s last response may be supporting a premise by simply repeating the premise as the conclusion without giving actual proof or evidence.uRevise the assistant’s response if possible so that it’s not supporting a premise by simply repeating the premise as the conclusion without giving actual proof or evidence.beggingthequestionzDiscuss ways in which the assistant's last response is restating the conclusion of an argument as a premise without providing actual support for the conclusion in the first place.uWrite a revision of the assistant’s response that refrains from restating the conclusion of an argument as a premise without providing actual support for the conclusion in the first place. trickquestionuIdentify ways in which the assistant’s last response is asking a question that contains or assumes information that has not been proven or substantiated.zPlease write a new assistant response so that it does not ask a question that contains or assumes information that has not been proven or substantiated. overapplieruIdentify ways in which the assistant’s last response is applying a general rule or generalization to a specific case it was not meant to apply to.zPlease write a new response that does not apply a general rule or generalization to a specific case it was not meant to apply to. equivocationuRead the assistant’s last response carefully and identify if it is using the same word or phrase in two different senses or contexts within an argument.zRewrite the assistant response so that it does not use the same word or phrase in two different senses or contexts within an argument. amphibolyuCritique the assistant’s last response to see if it is constructing sentences such that the grammar or structure is ambiguous, leading to multiple interpretations.zPlease rewrite the assistant response to remove any construction of sentences where the grammar or structure is ambiguous or leading to multiple interpretations.accentzDiscuss whether the assitant's response is misrepresenting an argument by shifting the emphasis of a word or phrase to give it a different meaning than intended.zPlease rewrite the AI model's response so that it is not misrepresenting an argument by shifting the emphasis of a word or phrase to give it a different meaning than intended. compositionzDiscuss whether the assistant's response is erroneously inferring that something is true of the whole based on the fact that it is true of some part or parts.zPlease rewrite the assitant's response so that it is not erroneously inferring that something is true of the whole based on the fact that it is true of some part or parts.divisionzDiscuss whether the assistant's last response is erroneously inferring that something is true of the parts based on the fact that it is true of the whole.zPlease rewrite the assitant's response so that it is not erroneously inferring that something is true of the parts based on the fact that it is true of the whole.)rrrrr r r r r rrrrrrrrrr FALLACIESN)__doc__typingrZ-langchain_experimental.fallacy_removal.modelsrrstr__annotations__rr~/var/www/html/cobodadashboardai.evdpl.com/venv/lib/python3.9/site-packages/langchain_experimental/fallacy_removal/fallacies.pys