This might be a strange question but I'm looking for something that goes beyond grammar and plagiarism checking for research papers — specifically something that helps identify logical gaps in the argument structure.
My papers consistently pass grammar checks. They're properly cited. The prose is clean. And then my professor finds the place where I've made an inferential leap that the evidence doesn't actually support, or where two consecutive paragraphs are making slightly incompatible claims, and I genuinely didn't see it before submission.
I've tried reading drafts backwards to catch structural issues. I've tried outlining after writing to see if the actual paper matches my intended structure. Both help somewhat. What I haven't found is any digital tool that does anything useful at the argument level rather than the sentence level.
My suspicion is that this tool basically doesn't exist in an automated form and that what I'm describing is fundamentally a human reader problem — you need someone who understands your field and your argument to catch logical inconsistencies, and no algorithm does that yet.
But I'm asking anyway because maybe someone knows something I don't. Is there anything out there that comes close? Even partial help at the argument structure level would be useful
My papers consistently pass grammar checks. They're properly cited. The prose is clean. And then my professor finds the place where I've made an inferential leap that the evidence doesn't actually support, or where two consecutive paragraphs are making slightly incompatible claims, and I genuinely didn't see it before submission.
I've tried reading drafts backwards to catch structural issues. I've tried outlining after writing to see if the actual paper matches my intended structure. Both help somewhat. What I haven't found is any digital tool that does anything useful at the argument level rather than the sentence level.
My suspicion is that this tool basically doesn't exist in an automated form and that what I'm describing is fundamentally a human reader problem — you need someone who understands your field and your argument to catch logical inconsistencies, and no algorithm does that yet.
But I'm asking anyway because maybe someone knows something I don't. Is there anything out there that comes close? Even partial help at the argument structure level would be useful