Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Evaluating Argument Strength Questions and Answers 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Question: 'Should governments invest heavily in nuclear energy?' Strong or weak: 'Nuclear power plants create long-term radioactive waste storage problems that last thousands of years and pose generational risks.'
- Weak — nuclear waste can be stored safely, so this concern is obsolete.
- Strong — long-term radioactive waste with multi-generational impact is a substantive and directly relevant concern. (Correct answer)
- Weak — the argument only focuses on the negative without acknowledging nuclear energy's benefits.
- Strong — but only if the government plans to build more than 10 plants.
Correct answer: Strong — long-term radioactive waste with multi-generational impact is a substantive and directly relevant concern.
Radioactive waste lasting thousands of years is a significant, unresolved technical and ethical challenge directly relevant to the policy question.
On the WGCTA, a strong argument is one that directly and substantively addresses the question — it introduces real consequences, principles, or evidence that bear on the decision. Long-term radioactive waste storage is one of the most significant unresolved challenges of nuclear energy, involving geological disposal, intergenerational safety burdens, and catastrophic risk scenarios. This is a strong argument because it raises a specific, factually grounded, long-term concern that policymakers cannot ignore. Option A dismissively labels current storage solutions as 'safe' when the scientific community acknowledges ongoing challenges. Option C applies the fallacy of demanding balanced arguments — a strong argument need not be comprehensive. Option D introduces an arbitrary numerical condition.
Question 2: Question: 'Should employers be able to monitor employees' emails and messages?' Strong or weak: 'Employee privacy is a fundamental right that should not be violated by employer surveillance without cause.'
- Weak — employers own company systems, so employees have no reasonable privacy expectation.
- Strong — privacy rights in the workplace are a substantive and directly relevant ethical concern. (Correct answer)
- Weak — privacy arguments are emotional rather than legal.
- Strong — but only if the employees are unaware of the monitoring.
Correct answer: Strong — privacy rights in the workplace are a substantive and directly relevant ethical concern.
Employee privacy is a recognized legal and ethical principle directly relevant to any surveillance policy — it is a strong argument regardless of one's position on the question.
Privacy in the employment context is protected to varying degrees in many legal systems, and even where not legally mandated, represents a recognized ethical principle with real effects on employee wellbeing and organizational trust. This is a strong argument because it introduces a genuine, directly relevant counter-principle to the surveillance policy. Option A raises the employer ownership argument — relevant but does not make privacy arguments weak. Option C incorrectly characterizes privacy arguments as merely emotional — they are grounded in legal frameworks, psychological research, and ethical theory. Option D introduces a conditional based on awareness, which is a separate argument about the nature of the monitoring, not a criterion for whether the privacy argument is strong.
Question 3: Question: 'Should governments make organ donation opt-out rather than opt-in?' Strong or weak: 'An opt-out system has increased organ donation rates significantly in countries that have adopted it.'
- Weak — other countries' experiences are not relevant to any specific government's policy.
- Strong — empirical evidence of increased donation rates directly addresses the policy's effectiveness. (Correct answer)
- Weak — increased rates may be due to other factors, not the opt-out system.
- Strong — any increase in donation rates automatically justifies the policy change.
Correct answer: Strong — empirical evidence of increased donation rates directly addresses the policy's effectiveness.
Empirical evidence from countries implementing opt-out systems showing increased donation rates directly addresses the effectiveness question central to whether the policy should be adopted.
A strong argument introduces substantive evidence relevant to the policy's outcome. Multiple countries (Spain, Austria, Wales) have implemented opt-out systems and documented significant increases in organ donation rates. This empirical evidence directly addresses the central question of whether the policy would work. Option A incorrectly dismisses international comparative evidence — cross-national policy comparison is a standard tool in evidence-based policymaking. Option C raises a valid methodological concern but does not make the argument weak — it makes the argument partially contested, not irrelevant. Option D commits the fallacy of treating any evidence as sufficient justification, ignoring cost and ethical considerations.
Question 4: Question: 'Should the school week be shortened to four days?' Strong or weak: 'My neighbor's child loved going to school only four days a week when they tried it.'
- Strong — anecdotal evidence can represent broader sentiment.
- Weak — a single personal anecdote is insufficient evidence for a broad educational policy decision. (Correct answer)
- Strong — parental opinions are the most important input for school policy.
- Weak — neighbor's children are not experts in education policy.
Correct answer: Weak — a single personal anecdote is insufficient evidence for a broad educational policy decision.
A single anecdote about one child's experience cannot support a systemic policy change — it lacks generalizability, methodological rigor, and ignores academic, economic, and childcare implications.
Strong arguments on the WGCTA are those that provide substantial, generalizable reasoning or evidence relevant to the policy question. A personal anecdote about one child's enjoyment is anecdotal evidence — it may be emotionally compelling but lacks the scale, representativeness, and rigor to support a broad policy change affecting millions of students, teachers, and families. Policy decisions about school structure require evidence on academic outcomes, childcare impacts, teacher workload, and community effects. Option A attributes inappropriate weight to anecdote. Option C makes parental opinions supreme without justification. Option D is correct in spirit but incorrectly reasons from expertise rather than evidence quality.
Question 5: Question: 'Should governments implement carbon taxes?' Strong or weak: 'A carbon tax would generate significant government revenue that could be invested in renewable energy infrastructure.'
- Weak — taxes always reduce economic growth, so revenue arguments cannot justify them.
- Strong — generating revenue for clean energy investment directly addresses both the fiscal and environmental dimensions of the policy. (Correct answer)
- Weak — the government might not use carbon tax revenue for renewable energy.
- Strong — but only if the tax rate exceeds $50 per tonne of CO2.
Correct answer: Strong — generating revenue for clean energy investment directly addresses both the fiscal and environmental dimensions of the policy.
The argument identifies a concrete mechanism by which the carbon tax creates a positive feedback loop — it generates revenue that can accelerate the transition it incentivizes, addressing both climate and fiscal dimensions.
A strong argument for a carbon tax must go beyond 'it punishes pollution' to show concrete benefits. Revenue recycling — where carbon tax revenue funds clean energy transitions — is a well-documented policy mechanism that addresses both the environmental goal (reducing emissions) and the economic concern (productive use of new revenues). Option A makes a sweeping claim that taxes always harm economic growth, which is an overgeneralization. Option C introduces a concern about revenue allocation — while valid in a policy debate, it challenges the certainty of the benefit, not the relevance of the argument. Option D introduces an arbitrary rate threshold.
Question 6: Question: 'Should universities prioritize applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds?' Strong or weak: 'Research shows that students from disadvantaged backgrounds who attend university are significantly more likely to lift their families out of poverty than peers who don't attend.'
- Strong — empirical evidence of socioeconomic impact directly addresses the social justice justification for the policy. (Correct answer)
- Weak — university places are limited and should go to the most academically prepared students.
- Weak — poverty and education are complex issues that cannot be addressed through admissions policy.
- Strong — universities should admit whomever will most benefit financially from attendance.
Correct answer: Strong — empirical evidence of socioeconomic impact directly addresses the social justice justification for the policy.
Empirical evidence of poverty alleviation effects directly supports the social mobility rationale for prioritizing disadvantaged applicants — it addresses the central justification for the policy.
The question asks about prioritizing disadvantaged applicants — a policy grounded in social mobility and equity. Research showing that university attendance significantly helps disadvantaged students lift families out of poverty directly validates the social mobility rationale for the policy. This is strong, empirically grounded evidence addressing the core justification. Option B raises a competing criterion (academic preparation) but doesn't make this evidence weak — it's a separate argument. Option C broadly dismisses policy efficacy without engaging with the specific evidence presented. Option D distorts the argument — the justification is social mobility, not maximizing individual financial benefit from attendance.
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Evaluating Argument Strength Questions and Answers 2
Question: 'Should governments invest heavily in nuclear energy?' Strong or weak: 'Nuclear power plants create long-term radioactive waste storage problems that last thousands of years and pose generational risks.'