> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://polymarketguide.gitbook.io/polymarketguide/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://polymarketguide.gitbook.io/polymarketguide/resolution/how-to-participate/discuss/analyzing-an-argument.md).

# Analyzing an Argument

Here's an example of an argument from a UMA dispute thread.

**Market:** *Trump announces end of military operations against Iran before July?*

<figure><img src="https://3511841878-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-prod.appspot.com/o/spaces%2FwmHFi7NV8gmAN3L4jVKb%2Fuploads%2Fgit-blob-63b4d96aab4aa940ab44aa6fc7feb76e4997af68%2Farchived-821384f97f.png?alt=media" alt=""><figcaption></figcaption></figure>

### Argument Evaluation

{% tabs %}
{% tab title="Strengths" %}

* Cites the resolution criteria directly.
* Uses relevant sources, including the Department of Defense and Secretary of State.
* Anticipates counterarguments.
* Reaches a clear conclusion.
  {% endtab %}

{% tab title="Weaknesses" %}

* Uses an informal tone that can reduce credibility.
* Some evidence is vague or may not satisfy the criteria.
* Does not confirm whether the evidence was available when the proposal was submitted.
* Does not clearly connect every piece of evidence to the resolution criteria.
  {% endtab %}

{% tab title="Improvements" %}

* Use a neutral, professional tone.
* Clarify which sources satisfy the market's requirements.
* Confirm that the evidence was available when the proposal was submitted.
* Tie each piece of evidence directly to the resolution criteria.
  {% endtab %}
  {% endtabs %}

Participants sometimes change their position after reviewing new evidence. Since users are limited to one message per UMA dispute thread, they may edit their original post to reflect that change.