As an important course for cultivating critical thinking in university general education, informal logic focuses on the interpretation of natural-language arguments and the identification of logical fallacies. At present, the informal logic teaching system in Chinese universities largely draws on the argument evaluation paradigm established by the Windsor School in Canada. The RSA criteria (Relevance, Sufficiency, Acceptability) of this paradigm focus on procedural technical scrutiny of arguments and methodologically bracket the value dimension. This methodological feature creates a theoretical gap with the value guidance emphasized by China’s curriculum ideological and political education. This difference is not a matter of superiority or inferiority, but rather a natural divergence in pathways formed by informal logic within different educational traditions. To address this gap, this paper, grounded in the localized educational context, constructs a three-dimensional argument evaluation framework encompassing logical validity, contextual reasonableness, and value legitimacy. This framework does not reject the Windsor paradigm; rather, it expands the theoretical capacity while preserving the reasonable core of its procedural rationality, thereby offering an operationally feasible framework grounded in the discipline’s internal logic for the integration of ideological-political education into logic-oriented general education courses.