Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Interpreting Evidence and Data Questions and Answers

Question 1

Statement: A retail company's customer service department reported that complaints about shipping delays increased by 50% in the last quarter compared to the previous quarter. During this same period, the company switched to a new, lower-cost logistics partner.

Inference: The new logistics partner is the cause of the increased shipping delays.

Accepted Answer

The inference is probably true.

Answer

The inference is 'Probably True' because the two events—switching to a new logistics partner and a 50% increase in shipping delay complaints—occurred simultaneously. While this strong correlation suggests a likely causal link, it is not definitive proof. Other factors, such as a sudden increase in order volume or external weather events, could have contributed. Therefore, 'Definitely True' is too strong a conclusion, but the evidence makes the inference more likely to be true than false.

Question 2

Statement: A survey conducted in a specific city found that 85% of residents who own a dog report feeling 'happy' on a daily basis, compared to only 60% of residents who do not own a pet. The survey was professionally conducted with a representative sample and a low margin of error.

Inference: Owning a dog makes people in this city happier.

Accepted Answer

There is insufficient data to determine if the inference is true.

Answer

There is 'Insufficient Data' to support the inference. The statement shows a correlation between dog ownership and reported happiness, but it does not establish causation. It is equally possible that happier people are more likely to get dogs, or that a third factor (like being more active or having a larger home) contributes to both dog ownership and happiness. The data does not prove that the act of owning a dog is the cause of the increased happiness.

Question 3

Statement: In a controlled study, 100 tomato plants were divided into two groups. Group A was grown with a new liquid fertilizer, while Group B was grown with only water. All other conditions (sunlight, soil, temperature) were identical. After 12 weeks, the average plant in Group A was 30% taller and produced 40% more fruit than the average plant in Group B.

Inference: The new liquid fertilizer is effective at improving tomato plant growth and yield under the tested conditions.

Accepted Answer

The inference is probably true.

Answer

The inference is 'Probably True'. The experiment was well-controlled, isolating the fertilizer as the key variable. The significant positive results in Group A strongly support the conclusion that the fertilizer is effective. It is not 'Definitely True' because in scientific contexts, a single study provides strong evidence but not absolute certainty; results typically need to be replicated. However, based solely on the information provided, the inference is highly probable.

Question 4

Statement: Three months ago, a technology company mandated that all employees must return to the office five days a week, ending its popular remote work policy. In the following quarter, the company's rate of voluntary employee resignations increased by 40%, and its internal employee satisfaction score dropped by 25 points.

Inference: The mandatory return-to-office policy is unpopular with the company's employees.

Accepted Answer

The inference is probably true.

Answer

This inference is 'Probably True'. The data shows a strong temporal correlation between the implementation of the new, stricter policy and two negative outcomes directly related to employee sentiment: a sharp increase in people quitting and a significant drop in satisfaction scores. While other factors could exist, the most direct and logical explanation for these changes is the policy itself, making the inference highly probable.

Question 5

Statement: A city ordinance states, 'No vehicle exceeding 3 tons in weight may use the old suspension bridge.' A standard passenger minivan, which weighs 2.5 tons, crossed the bridge yesterday.

Inference: The minivan's crossing of the bridge was a violation of the ordinance.

Accepted Answer

The inference is definitely false.

Answer

The inference is 'Definitely False'. The ordinance explicitly applies to vehicles 'exceeding 3 tons'. The minivan weighs 2.5 tons, which is less than the 3-ton limit. Therefore, based on a direct interpretation of the facts given, the minivan did not violate the ordinance. The inference directly contradicts the information provided.

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Practice Test

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Practice Test

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Interpreting Evidence and Data Questions and Answers