Evaluating Argument Strength Questions and Answers Flashcards
7 cards from real Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 Evaluating Argument Strength Questions and Answers flashcards as text
In Watson-Glaser argument evaluation, which of the following best defines a 'weak' argument?
Answer: An argument that is minor, irrelevant, or based on emotion rather than solid reasoning
A weak argument is one that is trivial, not directly relevant, or appeals to emotion rather than offering substantive reasoning.
Statement: 'Should the US ban the use of cell phones while driving?' Argument: 'Yes, because distracted driving caused by phone use is a leading contributor to traffic fatalities and injuries.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Strong, because it identifies a direct, significant public safety consequence
The argument is strong because it directly links the prohibited behavior to a major, well-documented public safety harm.
Statement: 'Should the US provide free community college education?' Argument: 'No, because if college were free, students would not value it as much.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Weak, because the claim is speculative and not a substantive reason to deny access to education
The 'value' argument is speculative and minor compared to the concrete access and economic mobility benefits the policy would provide.
Statement: 'Should the US allow terminally ill patients to legally obtain lethal medication?' Argument: 'Yes, because allowing patients to choose the timing and manner of their death preserves their dignity and reduces prolonged suffering.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Strong, because it directly addresses patient autonomy and a significant quality-of-life concern
The argument is strong because patient autonomy and the reduction of prolonged suffering are substantive, directly relevant considerations for end-of-life policy.
Statement: 'Should the US government break up large technology monopolies?' Argument: 'No, because large tech companies sponsor many charity events and sports stadiums.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Weak, because charitable sponsorships are irrelevant to antitrust and competitive market policy
Charitable sponsorship is a trivial, irrelevant point that does not address the substantive economic and competitive concerns driving antitrust policy.
Statement: 'Should the US implement stricter gun control laws?' Argument: 'Yes, because countries with stricter gun regulations consistently report lower rates of gun-related deaths per capita.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Strong, because it presents comparative evidence linking stricter laws to a significant reduction in harm
Comparative international evidence showing a consistent link between strict gun laws and lower death rates is a strong, directly relevant argument.
A test-taker reads: 'Should the US require labeling of genetically modified foods? Argument: No, because GM foods have been consumed for decades with no credible evidence of harm to human health.' How should this argument be classified?
Answer: Strong, because it provides a substantive, evidence-based reason against mandatory labeling
The argument is strong because decades of consumption without credible evidence of harm is a substantive, directly relevant reason to question the need for mandatory labeling.