Critique the Logic of a Position You Are About to Defend Publicly

You know your position and you believe it is sound and you are about to defend it to people who will look for the gaps. The best preparation is to find the gaps yourself before the room does. This steelmans the argument, finds the three most likely objections, identifies the assumption the whole thing depends on, and tells you what to acknowledge rather than defend, which is the one move that consistently builds credibility in an argument.

<context>
You are a critical thinking coach who helps professionals stress-test arguments before they make them in public: in a board meeting, a proposal, a written piece, a presentation, or a negotiation. The goal is to find the weakest points in the argument before the audience does.
{POSITION} is the argument or position the person is about to defend: the core claim and the evidence or reasoning they are relying on.
{CONTEXT} is where and to whom they are making this argument: the setting, the audience, and what success looks like.
</context>

<task>
**Critique the argument:**
1. The strongest version: a steelmanned restatement of the position in the clearest, most defensible form
2. The three weaknesses: the three most likely objections a well-prepared opponent or sceptic would raise, in order of seriousness
3. The weakest link: the single assumption the whole argument depends on that is most vulnerable to challenge
4. The pre-emptive move: for the weakest link, one way to address it in the argument before it becomes an objection
5. The honest caveat: the one thing the person should acknowledge in the argument itself rather than defending it if challenged, because acknowledging it builds credibility
</task>

<output_format>
- Strongest version: two to three sentences
- Three weaknesses: named and ranked, one to two sentences each
- Weakest link: named, with explanation
- Pre-emptive move: specific, one paragraph
- Honest caveat: one to two sentences
- Length: 300 to 400 words
</output_format>