Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Evaluating Argument Relevance 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Statement: 'Should the government fund free mental health clinics in low-income neighborhoods?' Argument: 'Yes, because mental illness rates are higher in low-income areas but access to care is disproportionately lower.' Is this argument strong or weak?
- Weak, because mental health is a private matter
- Strong, because it directly identifies the disparity the policy is designed to correct (Correct answer)
- Weak, because free clinics might reduce quality of care
- Strong, because government should fund all medical services
Correct answer: Strong, because it directly identifies the disparity the policy is designed to correct
The argument is strong because it presents a direct, data-grounded reason that justifies targeting this specific population.
Question 2: Statement: 'Should social media platforms be held legally liable for user-generated misinformation?' Argument: 'No, because social media companies employ many people and liability could reduce jobs.' Is this argument strong or weak?
- Strong, because employment is an important economic concern
- Weak, because employment impact is too indirectly related to misinformation liability (Correct answer)
- Strong, because laws should protect businesses
- Weak, because social media companies are profitable
Correct answer: Weak, because employment impact is too indirectly related to misinformation liability
The argument is weak because potential employment effects are too speculative and tangential to the core legal question of misinformation liability.
Question 3: Statement: 'Should the US adopt a four-day workweek as a national standard?' Argument: 'Yes, because studies in multiple countries show productivity remained equal or improved with one fewer workday.' Is this argument strong or weak?
- Strong, because it addresses the core concern that shorter weeks might reduce output (Correct answer)
- Weak, because results in other countries may not apply to the US
- Weak, because workers should negotiate hours individually
- Strong, because people deserve more leisure time
Correct answer: Strong, because it addresses the core concern that shorter weeks might reduce output
The argument is strong because empirical evidence directly rebuts the main objection to the policy.
Question 4: Statement: 'Should schools ban smartphones during class?' Argument: 'No, because smartphones were invented in the 1990s and have become ubiquitous.' Is this argument strong or weak?
- Strong, because the prevalence of smartphones makes banning them impractical
- Weak, because the invention date and widespread use don't justify classroom access (Correct answer)
- Strong, because students are accustomed to having phones
- Weak, because banning phones infringes on free speech
Correct answer: Weak, because the invention date and widespread use don't justify classroom access
The argument is weak because the age or prevalence of a technology does not constitute a reason against restricting its use in educational settings.
Question 5: Statement: 'Should fast food restaurants be required to display calorie counts on menus?' Argument: 'Yes, because research shows that visible calorie information leads many consumers to make lower-calorie choices.' Is this argument strong or weak?
- Weak, because some people do not count calories
- Strong, because it provides behavioral evidence directly supporting the policy's goal (Correct answer)
- Weak, because restaurants already offer salads
- Strong, because consumers have a right to information
Correct answer: Strong, because it provides behavioral evidence directly supporting the policy's goal
The argument is strong because it cites evidence directly linking the policy mechanism (display) to the intended outcome (healthier choices).
Question 6: Statement: 'Should college athletes be paid salaries?' Argument: 'No, because college athletes receive scholarships, which is a form of compensation already provided.' Is this argument strong or weak?
- Weak, because scholarships are not equivalent to salaries
- Strong, because any compensation negates the need for salaries
- Weak, because not all athletes receive full scholarships (Correct answer)
- Strong, because it identifies an existing alternative to salaries
Correct answer: Weak, because not all athletes receive full scholarships
While scholarships are a form of compensation, many athletes receive partial or no scholarships, making this argument weak due to its overgeneralization.
Question 7: Statement: 'Should the US implement stricter gun background check requirements?' Argument: 'Yes, because gaps in the current system have allowed individuals with violent histories to legally purchase firearms.' Is this argument strong or weak?
- Strong, because it identifies a specific, documented failure the policy is meant to fix (Correct answer)
- Weak, because criminals will find other ways to obtain guns
- Weak, because background checks already exist
- Strong, because stricter laws always improve safety
Correct answer: Strong, because it identifies a specific, documented failure the policy is meant to fix
The argument is strong because it provides a concrete, directly relevant failure in the existing system that the proposed policy addresses.
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Evaluating Argument Relevance 3
Statement: 'Should the government fund free mental health clinics in low-income neighborhoods?' Argument: 'Yes, because mental illness rates are higher in low-income areas but access to care is disproportionately lower.' Is this argument strong or weak?