Truth Blocks Analysis

Back to Post
New Scoring System: This post's overall score is calculated from the individual truth blocks below. To provide feedback or discuss specific arguments, comment on individual truth blocks rather than the post as a whole.
Oklahoma Essay Grading Controversy
by TodayThinkTrap • December 24, 2025
Original Post
Oklahoma Essay Grading Controversy
🗣️ Here are some direct statements from the parties involved in the Oklahoma University grading dispute:

1. University of Oklahoma: “The graduate teaching assistant was arbitrary in the grading of this specific paper.”
2. Mel Curth (TA): “I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs… but because the paper did not answer the questions, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence, and is at times offensive.”
3. Curth on science: “Every major psychological, medical, pediatric, and psychiatric association … acknowledges that … sex and gender is neither binary nor fixed.”
4. Samantha Fulnecky (student): “I definitely think that I was being punished for what I believe… I very clearly stated my beliefs and what the Bible says about gender and those roles.”
5. University statement: “We are committed to teaching students how to think, not what to think.”

🤔 Your turn: Where’s the fallacy? Which thinking traps can you spot in these statements?
Highlighted sentences link to their corresponding truth blocks. Click any highlighted sentence to jump to its detailed analysis.
Highlight Colors Indicate Content Type & Quality:
Strong Reasoning - Clear logic & evidence
Moderate - Some structure, could improve
Weak Reasoning - Fallacies or poor logic
ℹ️ Not Evaluable - Questions, personal statements (not poor quality)
Note: Gray highlights with dashed borders (ℹ️) indicate content like questions or personal experiences that aren't meant to present logical arguments. Low scores on these don't mean poor quality!
By TodayThinkTrap on December 24, 2025

Analysis Summary

7
Truth Blocks
17.4
Avg Logic Quality
Avg User Score
0.0
Avg Evidence Score
Avg Total Score
0.44
Legacy Truth Score
0.86
Legacy Confidence
0.19
Legacy Weighted

Individual Truth Blocks

Block 1
AI Analysis Logic Quality: 15.0 Evidence: Coming Soon
Community User: No comments yet
Truth: 0.10 Confidence: 0.85
🗣️ Here are some direct statements from the parties involved in the Oklahoma University grading dispute: 1.
Source Mapping: Exact_Quote
This is an exact quote from the original text.
Source sentence(s):
"🗣️ Here are some direct statements from the parties involved in the Oklahoma University grading dispute: 1." Click to highlight above
View Comments (0) Dashboard
AI Analysis:
Reasoning: 0.20
Truth: 0.10
Confidence: 0.85
Logic Quality: Weak
AI Justification:

AI evaluation using unified criteria

Canonical Block | Criteria v2.0 | Updated: Dec 24, 2025
Block 2
AI Analysis Logic Quality: 4.0 Evidence: Coming Soon
Community User: No comments yet
Truth: 0.50 Confidence: 0.85
⚠️ False_Premise fallacy
University of Oklahoma: “The graduate teaching assistant was arbitrary in the grading of this specific paper.” 2.
Source Mapping: Exact_Quote
This is an exact quote from the original text.
Source sentence(s):
"University of Oklahoma: “The graduate teaching assistant was arbitrary in the grading of this specific paper.” 2." Click to highlight above
View Comments (0) Dashboard
AI Analysis:
Reasoning: 0.40
Truth: 0.50
Confidence: 0.85
Logic Quality: Weak
Detected Fallacies:
False_Premise
AI Justification:

AI evaluation using unified criteria

Canonical Block | Criteria v2.0 | Updated: Dec 24, 2025
Block 3
AI Analysis Logic Quality: 0.0 Evidence: Coming Soon
Community User: No comments yet
Truth: 0.50 Confidence: 0.85
👤 Ad_Hominem fallacy ⚠️ False_Premise fallacy
Mel Curth (TA): “I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs… but because the paper did not answer the questions, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence, and is at times offensive.” 3.
Source Mapping: Exact_Quote
This is an exact quote from the original text.
Source sentence(s):
"Mel Curth (TA): “I am not deducting points because you have certain beliefs… but because the paper did not answer the questions, contradicts itself, heavily uses personal ideology over empirical evidence, and is at times offensive.” 3." Click to highlight above
View Comments (0) Dashboard
AI Analysis:
Reasoning: 0.40
Truth: 0.50
Confidence: 0.85
Logic Quality: Weak
Detected Fallacies:
Ad_Hominem False_Premise
AI Justification:

AI evaluation using unified criteria

Canonical Block | Criteria v2.0 | Updated: Dec 24, 2025
Block 4
AI Analysis Logic Quality: 80.0 Evidence: Coming Soon
Community User: No comments yet
Truth: 0.85 Confidence: 0.90
Curth on science: “Every major psychological, medical, pediatric, and psychiatric association … acknowledges that … sex and gender is neither binary nor fixed.” 4.
Source Mapping: Exact_Quote
This is an exact quote from the original text.
Source sentence(s):
"Curth on science: “Every major psychological, medical, pediatric, and psychiatric association … acknowledges that … sex and gender is neither binary nor fixed.” 4." Click to highlight above
View Comments (0) Dashboard
AI Analysis:
Reasoning: 0.75
Truth: 0.85
Confidence: 0.90
Logic Quality: Strong
AI Justification:

AI evaluation using unified criteria

Canonical Block | Criteria v2.0 | Updated: Dec 24, 2025
Block 5
AI Analysis Logic Quality: 4.0 Evidence: Coming Soon
Community User: No comments yet
Truth: 0.50 Confidence: 0.85
⚠️ False_Premise fallacy
Samantha Fulnecky (student): “I definitely think that I was being punished for what I believe… I very clearly stated my beliefs and what the Bible says about gender and those roles.” 5.
Source Mapping: Exact_Quote
This is an exact quote from the original text.
Source sentence(s):
"Samantha Fulnecky (student): “I definitely think that I was being punished for what I believe… I very clearly stated my beliefs and what the Bible says about gender and those roles.” 5." Click to highlight above
View Comments (0) Dashboard
AI Analysis:
Reasoning: 0.40
Truth: 0.50
Confidence: 0.85
Logic Quality: Weak
Detected Fallacies:
False_Premise
AI Justification:

AI evaluation using unified criteria

Canonical Block | Criteria v2.0 | Updated: Dec 24, 2025
Block 6
AI Analysis Logic Quality: 4.0 Evidence: Coming Soon
Community User: No comments yet
Truth: 0.50 Confidence: 0.85
⚠️ False_Premise fallacy
University statement: “We are committed to teaching students how to think, not what to think.” 🤔 Your turn: Where’s the fallacy?
Source Mapping: Exact_Quote
This is an exact quote from the original text.
Source sentence(s):
"University statement: “We are committed to teaching students how to think, not what to think.” 🤔 Your turn: Where’s the fallacy?" Click to highlight above
View Comments (0) Dashboard
AI Analysis:
Reasoning: 0.40
Truth: 0.50
Confidence: 0.85
Logic Quality: Weak
Detected Fallacies:
False_Premise
AI Justification:

AI evaluation using unified criteria

Canonical Block | Criteria v2.0 | Updated: Dec 24, 2025
Block 7
AI Analysis Logic Quality: 15.0 Evidence: Coming Soon
Community User: No comments yet
Truth: 0.10 Confidence: 0.85
Which thinking traps can you spot in these statements?
Source Mapping: Exact_Quote
This is an exact quote from the original text.
Source sentence(s):
"Which thinking traps can you spot in these statements?" Click to highlight above
View Comments (0) Dashboard
AI Analysis:
Reasoning: 0.20
Truth: 0.10
Confidence: 0.85
Logic Quality: Weak
AI Justification:

AI evaluation using unified criteria

References canonical block | Criteria v2.0 | Updated: Dec 24, 2025
About Truth Blocks

Truth blocks are minimal argument units that represent atomic reasoning. Each block is analyzed independently for:

  • Truth Score: Factual accuracy (0-1)
  • Reasoning Types: Deductive, inductive, etc.
  • Logical Fallacies: Detected reasoning errors
  • Confidence: AI certainty in analysis

The weighted score combines truth score with reasoning quality and fallacy penalties according to our scoring criteria.

Quick Actions
View Original JSON API All Analyses