🗣️ Here are several statements made around the recent debate on California’s menopause bill:

1. “With the way he’s overlooked women, he probably shouldn’t be our next president either.”
2. “By vetoing the menopause bill two years in a row, he’s devaluing half the population.”
3. “Illinois is the first state to mandate hormone therapy coverage, and California should be ashamed not to follow.”
4. “Women deserve better — the days of outliving men but doing it in poor health are over.”
5. “I have zero left to give, and I’m going to fight like hell because women’s longevity depends on it.”
6. “The bill would have unintentionally raised health care costs for millions of working women and working families — something we must avoid.”
7. “By working together, we can expand menopause care without raising bills for women.”

🤔 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!
Source