Evaluating Argument Relevance 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 Relevance flashcards as text
Statement: 'Should the US expand nuclear energy production?' Argument: 'Yes, because nuclear power produces large amounts of electricity with near-zero carbon emissions during operation.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Strong, because it directly addresses both energy capacity and a key climate concern
The argument is strong because it directly addresses two of the central considerations in the energy policy debate: output and climate impact.
Statement: 'Should schools teach cursive handwriting?' Argument: 'No, because cursive handwriting is not tested on any major standardized exam students take.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Weak, because exclusion from a standardized test does not mean a skill lacks educational value
The argument is weak because the absence of cursive from standardized tests does not constitute evidence that the skill is without educational benefit.
Statement: 'Should the US government provide free internet access to all households?' Argument: 'Yes, because in the modern economy, internet access is increasingly necessary for job searching, remote work, education, and civic participation.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Strong, because it identifies multiple direct ways internet access has become essential to economic and civic life
The argument is strong because it provides several concrete, relevant ways that internet access has become a functional necessity in modern society.
Statement: 'Should the minimum wage be raised to $20 per hour nationally?' Argument: 'No, because small businesses in rural areas operate on thin margins and a wage increase could force layoffs or closures.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Strong, because it identifies a specific, plausible economic consequence relevant to the debate
The argument is strong because it identifies a concrete, relevant group likely to be directly harmed by the policy.
Statement: 'Should prisons focus more on rehabilitation than punishment?' Argument: 'Yes, because recidivism rates are lower among individuals who receive education and vocational training while incarcerated.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Strong, because it provides direct empirical support for the effectiveness of the proposed approach
The argument is strong because it cites outcome data directly relevant to the core objective of reducing repeat offenses.
Statement: 'Should the US eliminate daylight saving time?' Argument: 'No, because farmers in the Midwest prefer the current schedule.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Weak, because one group's preference is insufficient justification for a national policy
The argument is weak because the preference of a single interest group does not constitute a broadly relevant reason to maintain a national time policy.
Statement: 'Should children under age 13 be banned from social media?' Argument: 'Yes, because peer-reviewed research links heavy social media use in children to increased rates of anxiety, depression, and poor sleep.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Strong, because it draws on relevant scientific evidence of harm to the exact group targeted by the policy
The argument is strong because it cites peer-reviewed evidence of harm specifically affecting the age group the policy is designed to protect.