Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Evaluating Argument Relevance Questions and Answers 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Question: 'Should cities ban single-use plastic bags?' Argument: 'Plastic bags cause significant marine pollution, harming ocean ecosystems and wildlife.' Is this argument strong and relevant?
- No — marine pollution only affects wildlife, not humans, so it is irrelevant to city policy.
- Yes — marine pollution from plastic bags is directly relevant to the environmental harm the ban aims to prevent. (Correct answer)
- No — a city ban cannot solve global ocean pollution.
- Yes — but only if the city is located near the ocean.
Correct answer: Yes — marine pollution from plastic bags is directly relevant to the environmental harm the ban aims to prevent.
Marine pollution is a direct environmental consequence of single-use plastic bags — it is highly relevant to whether the policy is justified on environmental grounds.
On the WGCTA, a strong argument directly addresses the question and introduces substantive reasoning, not merely emotional or tangential appeals. Marine pollution from plastic bags is a documented, causally linked consequence of single-use plastic use. The city ban is designed to reduce plastic waste, of which marine pollution is a primary harm. Option A incorrectly limits relevance to only direct human harms. Option C raises a scale objection — while a city ban alone may not solve global pollution, it directly reduces the city's contribution to the problem, maintaining relevance. Option D introduces an irrelevant geographic restriction — all plastic eventually reaches waterways regardless of city proximity to the ocean.
Question 2: Question: 'Should employers be required to provide paid parental leave?' Argument: 'Many European countries offer paid parental leave and have strong economies.' Is this argument strong and relevant?
- Yes — European examples prove that paid leave works economically.
- No — correlation between paid leave and economic strength does not prove causation; other factors explain European economies. (Correct answer)
- Yes — if European countries do it, all countries should follow.
- No — parental leave policies are irrelevant to employment law.
Correct answer: No — correlation between paid leave and economic strength does not prove causation; other factors explain European economies.
The fact that some countries have both paid leave and strong economies does not establish that paid leave caused economic strength — confounding factors make this argument weak and insufficient.
While relevant to the discussion, the argument as structured is weak because it commits the fallacy of association — European economies are strong for many reasons (institutional quality, educational systems, trade relationships, innovation ecosystems) that have little to do with parental leave policy. A strong argument would need to show economic effects specifically attributable to parental leave policies. Option A accepts the correlation as proof. Option C applies an argument from authority/precedent fallacy. Option D incorrectly dismisses parental leave as irrelevant to employment law — it is directly relevant. Option B correctly identifies the argument as weak due to its confounded correlational structure.
Question 3: Question: 'Should governments fund public arts programs?' Argument: 'Arts programs provide economic benefits through tourism, employment, and increased property values in cultural districts.' Is this argument strong and relevant?
- No — governments should only fund programs with direct social welfare benefits.
- Yes — economic returns from arts programs are directly relevant to the cost-benefit analysis of public funding. (Correct answer)
- No — not all arts programs generate tourism or raise property values.
- Yes — but only if the arts programs feature internationally recognized artists.
Correct answer: Yes — economic returns from arts programs are directly relevant to the cost-benefit analysis of public funding.
Economic returns are directly relevant to whether public funding is justified — they address the resource allocation question central to the debate.
One of the central objections to government arts funding is the cost to taxpayers. An argument that arts programs generate economic returns (tourism revenue, employment, property tax increases) directly counters this objection and addresses the cost-benefit dimension of the policy debate. This makes it a strong and relevant argument. Option A introduces an arbitrary restriction on government program eligibility not present in the question. Option C is a partial objection — while not all programs generate equal economic benefits, the argument speaks to programs that do, and the question is about funding programs generally. Option D introduces an irrelevant artist recognition requirement.
Question 4: Question: 'Should the minimum wage be increased?' Argument: 'The CEO of a fast-food chain has publicly opposed minimum wage increases.' Is this argument strong and relevant?
- Yes — industry leaders have important insights into wage policy impacts.
- No — citing who opposes the policy is not a substantive argument about the policy's merits or harms. (Correct answer)
- Yes — if business owners oppose it, the increase will harm the economy.
- No — only economists can make relevant arguments about wage policy.
Correct answer: No — citing who opposes the policy is not a substantive argument about the policy's merits or harms.
An appeal to authority or opposition does not itself provide substantive reasoning about whether the policy is beneficial or harmful — the CEO's opinion is not an argument, it is a position.
A strong argument on the WGCTA provides reasons that directly address the consequences, principles, or evidence relevant to the question. Citing the CEO's opposition is an appeal to authority/interest — it tells us what position a stakeholder holds but not why the policy is right or wrong. The CEO also has an obvious financial interest in opposing minimum wage increases, making this an argument from self-interested authority. Option A accepts the source as providing automatic insight. Option C converts the CEO's opposition into a conclusion about economic harm without reasoning. Option D overcorrects by restricting valid arguments to economists only — many perspectives are relevant, but they must provide reasons.
Question 5: Question: 'Should universities be tuition-free?' Argument: 'Students who attend university earn significantly higher lifetime incomes than those who do not.' Is this argument strong and relevant?
- No — higher earnings benefit individuals, not governments, so this is irrelevant to funding policy.
- Yes — higher earnings generate more tax revenue, partly justifying public investment in higher education. (Correct answer)
- No — tuition costs are unrelated to post-graduation income.
- Yes — this proves universities should be free because students benefit from them.
Correct answer: Yes — higher earnings generate more tax revenue, partly justifying public investment in higher education.
Higher graduate earnings increase tax revenues and reduce social welfare costs, providing a public economic return that directly addresses whether public funding of tuition is justified.
The question is about whether the government should make universities tuition-free (a public funding decision). Higher graduate earnings are relevant because they generate higher tax revenues, reduce reliance on social safety nets, and increase economic productivity — all of which represent returns to the public sector that could justify the investment. This is a strong, directly relevant argument. Option A incorrectly limits the analysis to individual benefit. Option C is factually incorrect — a large body of research establishes this earnings premium. Option D makes a logical leap — that students benefit proves the policy should be free — which oversimplifies the cost-benefit analysis the question requires.
Question 6: Question: 'Should social media companies be required to verify user ages?' Argument: 'Verified age systems used by online retailers have successfully prevented minors from purchasing age-restricted products.' Is this argument strong and relevant?
- Yes — it shows that age verification technology exists and works in analogous contexts. (Correct answer)
- No — online retail is completely different from social media, making this comparison irrelevant.
- Yes — but only if social media platforms adopt the exact same system as retailers.
- No — age verification harms user privacy regardless of context.
Correct answer: Yes — it shows that age verification technology exists and works in analogous contexts.
Evidence from analogous online verification systems directly addresses the feasibility objection to age verification — showing the technology works in comparable digital environments.
A common objection to age verification requirements is that they are technically unfeasible or ineffective. Evidence from online retail age verification demonstrates that digital age verification systems can work at scale in real-world applications. The parallel is strong: both contexts involve online platforms needing to restrict access based on age. Option B overclaims the differences — while platforms differ in function, the technical age verification mechanism is comparable. Option C introduces an irrelevant requirement for exact replication of system design. Option D raises a privacy concern, which while relevant to a broader debate, does not address whether the comparison to retail is relevant — it is a separate argument, not a reason why this argument is irrelevant.
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Evaluating Argument Relevance Questions and Answers 2
Question: 'Should cities ban single-use plastic bags?' Argument: 'Plastic bags cause significant marine pollution, harming ocean ecosystems and wildlife.' Is this argument strong and relevant?