B.5.RA:8 - Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

Failure in the working situation	Repair
Choosing a scheme from a keyword or title and supplying its absent premises	Match the actual claims; recover contextual evidence for an implicit premise or revise the scheme.
Splitting a conditional into two asserted facts	Keep the conditional relation intact and obtain a separate ground for its antecedent before using it.
Making a charitable repair indistinguishable from the source’s argument	State which additions have contextual support and which are your new grounds or proposed revision.
Paraphrasing successive claims while the inference remains missing	Apply the relevant definition, rule or earlier result to the transition’s actual premises.
Checking local steps while failing to explain why a lemma or construction appears	Recover the difficulty that contribution resolves and connect it to the conclusion.
Treating several uses of one premise as several independent grounds	Keep the common prerequisite visible and examine its role in the needed branches.
Promoting a temporary assumption to an established premise	Recover the subargument and the conclusion obtained when that assumption is discharged.
Using one example to claim that the general statement has been proved	Recover the argument that covers the stated domain; retain the example as an illustration of it.
Demanding a complete reproof when the task only needs an established result under its stated conditions	Use that result at the needed level; open its internals when the new question requires them.