AWA Evidence Evaluation & Support 4 â Questions and Answers
Question 1: An AWA argument uses the phrase 'many experts agree' without naming sources. Why is this evidence weak?
- Experts are rarely correct about complex issues
- Vague attribution prevents verification and assessment of the experts' qualifications or consensus size (Correct answer)
- All expert opinions must be published to count as evidence
- The argument should use only non-expert perspectives for balance
Correct answer: Vague attribution prevents verification and assessment of the experts' qualifications or consensus size
Without identifying who the experts are or how many, readers cannot verify the claim or assess whether it reflects genuine consensus.
Question 2: Which scenario best illustrates the 'false equivalence' flaw in using evidence?
- Comparing two studies that use similar methodologies
- Treating a blog post and a peer-reviewed journal article as equally credible evidence (Correct answer)
- Using two different statistics to support the same point
- Citing both primary and secondary sources in the same argument
Correct answer: Treating a blog post and a peer-reviewed journal article as equally credible evidence
False equivalence occurs when sources with vastly different levels of rigor or credibility are treated as if they carry equal evidentiary weight.
Question 3: An argument presents data showing test scores rose after a new curriculum was adopted and concludes the curriculum caused the improvement. What alternative explanation should be explored?
- Whether the tests were graded consistently
- Whether other changesâsuch as new teachers, increased funding, or a different student cohortâoccurred simultaneously (Correct answer)
- Whether the curriculum was expensive to implement
- Whether test scores are a valid measure of learning
Correct answer: Whether other changesâsuch as new teachers, increased funding, or a different student cohortâoccurred simultaneously
Post hoc reasoning assumes the curriculum caused score improvements, but concurrent changes could be the actual cause.
Question 4: In AWA evidence evaluation, what is a 'confounding variable'?
- A variable that is difficult to define clearly
- An unmeasured factor that influences both the studied cause and the outcome, distorting the apparent relationship (Correct answer)
- A variable that appears in the conclusion but not the evidence
- A data point that contradicts the main trend
Correct answer: An unmeasured factor that influences both the studied cause and the outcome, distorting the apparent relationship
A confounding variable creates a spurious association between two factors by independently affecting both, making causation impossible to establish without controlling for it.
Question 5: An AWA argument states that since violent crime fell in cities that adopted a specific policing strategy, the strategy reduced crime. A strong critique would ask:
- Whether the police department has enough officers
- Whether crime was already declining nationally, making the local drop unremarkable (Correct answer)
- Whether the policing strategy is ethical
- Whether the city's population changed during the period
Correct answer: Whether crime was already declining nationally, making the local drop unremarkable
A national downward trend in violent crime would mean the local decline is expected regardless of the strategy, undermining the causal claim.
Question 6: Which of the following is the strongest form of evidence for an AWA argument about whether a medication is effective?
- Numerous patient testimonials praising the drug
- A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial published in a peer-reviewed journal (Correct answer)
- A manufacturer's press release citing internal research
- An endorsement from a well-known physician on social media
Correct answer: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial published in a peer-reviewed journal
Randomized controlled trials with blinding and placebo controls minimize bias and confounding, making them the gold standard for establishing medical efficacy.
Question 7: An argument uses absolute numbersâ'10,000 people complained'ârather than rates to support a claim about widespread dissatisfaction. What concern does this raise?
- Absolute numbers are never valid in arguments
- Without knowing the total population size, 10,000 complaints could represent a tiny fraction of users (Correct answer)
- Complaints should be measured in survey percentages only
- The number is too round to be credible
Correct answer: Without knowing the total population size, 10,000 complaints could represent a tiny fraction of users
Context is critical: 10,000 complaints out of 10 million users (0.1%) indicates very different levels of dissatisfaction than 10,000 out of 12,000 users (83%).
AWA Evidence Evaluation & Support 4
An AWA argument uses the phrase 'many experts agree' without naming sources.
Why is this evidence weak?