Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Evaluating Argument Relevance Questions and Answers 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Question: Should public schools ban cell phones in classrooms? Argument: Cell phones allow students to access social media, which is a major source of distraction. Is this a strong argument?
- Yes, because it directly identifies a mechanism by which cell phones harm classroom learning. (Correct answer)
- No, because social media is not the only use of cell phones.
- No, because banning phones would infringe on student rights.
- Yes, because all technology is distracting.
Correct answer: Yes, because it directly identifies a mechanism by which cell phones harm classroom learning.
The argument is strong because it directly and relevantly links cell phones to a specific harm (distraction via social media) that pertains to the classroom context.
Question 2: Question: Should the US adopt a universal basic income (UBI)? Argument: UBI has been successfully piloted in Finland, which has a very different economic structure from the US. Is this a strong argument?
- No, because the argument actually weakens the case for UBI by noting the structural differences. (Correct answer)
- Yes, because any successful pilot supports UBI adoption.
- No, because Finland is not a credible source.
- Yes, because universal income is a human right.
Correct answer: No, because the argument actually weakens the case for UBI by noting the structural differences.
The argument is weak because while it cites a pilot, it simultaneously undermines transferability by noting structural differences, making it irrelevant to the US context.
Question 3: Question: Should cities require developers to include affordable housing in new residential projects? Argument: Many low-income families are currently struggling to find housing they can afford in major cities. Is this a strong argument?
- Yes, because it identifies a real problem that the policy directly aims to address. (Correct answer)
- No, because it does not explain how the requirement would solve the problem.
- No, because low-income families should relocate to cheaper areas.
- Yes, because all new buildings should be affordable.
Correct answer: Yes, because it identifies a real problem that the policy directly aims to address.
The argument is strong because it establishes the existence of a genuine problem that the proposed policy is directly designed to address.
Question 4: Question: Should the federal government fund high-speed rail between major US cities? Argument: Many Americans enjoy traveling by car and find road trips to be a pleasurable experience. Is this a strong argument?
- No, because personal preference for driving is irrelevant to whether high-speed rail should be funded. (Correct answer)
- Yes, because public funds should reflect citizen preferences.
- Yes, because car travel and rail travel serve the same purpose.
- No, because high-speed rail is too expensive regardless of preferences.
Correct answer: No, because personal preference for driving is irrelevant to whether high-speed rail should be funded.
The argument is weak because personal enjoyment of car travel does not address the merits or drawbacks of funding high-speed rail infrastructure.
Question 5: Question: Should employers be required to provide paid parental leave? Argument: Countries with mandatory paid parental leave report higher rates of employee retention and workplace satisfaction. Is this a strong argument?
- Yes, because it provides relevant empirical evidence of workplace benefits tied directly to the policy. (Correct answer)
- No, because other countries' policies are not applicable to the US labor market.
- No, because retention rates are not the employer's concern.
- Yes, because parents deserve time with newborns regardless of economics.
Correct answer: Yes, because it provides relevant empirical evidence of workplace benefits tied directly to the policy.
The argument is strong because it provides direct, relevant empirical evidence of outcomes that bear on the employer's incentive to support the policy.
Question 6: Question: Should the voting age in the US be lowered to 16? Argument: At 16, individuals can drive a car and pay taxes on employment income in many states. Is this a strong argument?
- Yes, because it draws a relevant parallel between existing civic responsibilities and the right to vote. (Correct answer)
- No, because driving and voting are entirely different activities.
- No, because 16-year-olds are not mature enough to vote.
- Yes, because any citizen who pays taxes should vote.
Correct answer: Yes, because it draws a relevant parallel between existing civic responsibilities and the right to vote.
The argument is strong because it relevantly points out that 16-year-olds already bear civic responsibilities, supporting the case for extending voting rights.
Question 7: Question: Should companies be required to disclose their carbon emissions publicly? Argument: Transparency in corporate behavior generally leads to greater public trust in business institutions. Is this a strong argument?
- No, because the argument is too general and does not specifically address why carbon emissions disclosure matters. (Correct answer)
- Yes, because transparency always improves outcomes.
- Yes, because public trust is the most important corporate goal.
- No, because companies already report emissions voluntarily.
Correct answer: No, because the argument is too general and does not specifically address why carbon emissions disclosure matters.
The argument is weak because it relies on a broad generalization about transparency rather than addressing the specific value of disclosing carbon emissions.
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Evaluating Argument Relevance Questions and Answers 3
Question: Should public schools ban cell phones in classrooms?
Argument: Cell phones allow students to access social media, which is a major source of distraction.
Is this a strong argument?