Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Evaluating Argument Relevance Questions and Answers 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Question: Should the US government subsidize electric vehicle (EV) purchases? Argument: Electric vehicles produce zero direct emissions, reducing urban air pollution that harms public health. Is this a strong argument?
- Yes, because it directly links EV adoption to a tangible public health benefit relevant to the subsidy question. (Correct answer)
- No, because subsidies distort the free market.
- No, because not all Americans live in urban areas.
- Yes, because the environment is always more important than cost.
Correct answer: Yes, because it directly links EV adoption to a tangible public health benefit relevant to the subsidy question.
The argument is strong because it provides a direct, relevant public health rationale that supports the case for incentivizing EV adoption through subsidies.
Question 2: Question: Should professional athletes be required to serve as role models for youth? Argument: Many professional athletes come from difficult backgrounds and have overcome significant personal challenges. Is this a strong argument?
- No, because an athlete's personal background does not create an obligation to serve as a role model. (Correct answer)
- Yes, because overcoming hardship makes someone inspirational.
- Yes, because children look up to athletes regardless.
- No, because athletes are paid to perform, not to educate.
Correct answer: No, because an athlete's personal background does not create an obligation to serve as a role model.
The argument is weak because a person's background, however admirable, is irrelevant to whether they should be legally or professionally required to be a role model.
Question 3: Question: Should the US increase its defense budget? Argument: Military spending as a percentage of GDP has declined over the past two decades compared to Cold War levels. Is this a strong argument?
- No, because historical comparison to Cold War spending levels is not relevant to current security needs. (Correct answer)
- Yes, because maintaining historical spending levels ensures national security.
- Yes, because a smaller military percentage signals weakness to adversaries.
- No, because defense spending has no impact on national security.
Correct answer: No, because historical comparison to Cold War spending levels is not relevant to current security needs.
The argument is weak because comparing to Cold War-era spending does not address whether today's security threats require a larger budget.
Question 4: Question: Should social media platforms be held legally liable for harmful content posted by users? Argument: Social media companies generate billions of dollars in annual advertising revenue. Is this a strong argument?
- No, because a company's profitability is irrelevant to whether it should be legally liable for user content. (Correct answer)
- Yes, because wealthy companies can afford to pay legal penalties.
- Yes, because profit motive explains why platforms allow harmful content.
- No, because liability would reduce free speech online.
Correct answer: No, because a company's profitability is irrelevant to whether it should be legally liable for user content.
The argument is weak because revenue size does not logically bear on the question of legal liability for third-party content.
Question 5: Question: Should the US require all citizens to complete a year of national service? Argument: National service programs build civic identity and social cohesion across demographic groups. Is this a strong argument?
- Yes, because it identifies a direct social benefit that is relevant to justifying a mandatory national program. (Correct answer)
- No, because civic identity cannot be forced.
- No, because national service would take time away from education and careers.
- Yes, because military service should be compulsory for all.
Correct answer: Yes, because it identifies a direct social benefit that is relevant to justifying a mandatory national program.
The argument is strong because it points to a concrete social outcome—civic cohesion—that directly supports the rationale for a national service requirement.
Question 6: Question: Should the minimum wage be raised to $20 per hour nationally? Argument: A higher minimum wage would increase labor costs, potentially causing some small businesses to reduce staff. Is this a strong argument?
- Yes, because it identifies a direct and relevant economic consequence of raising the minimum wage. (Correct answer)
- No, because large businesses, not small ones, set the wage standard.
- No, because workers deserve a living wage regardless of business costs.
- Yes, because any job loss is unacceptable in economic policy.
Correct answer: Yes, because it identifies a direct and relevant economic consequence of raising the minimum wage.
The argument is strong because potential job losses at small businesses is a direct, relevant economic consequence that must be weighed in the policy debate.
Question 7: Question: Should public libraries offer free internet access to all residents? Argument: Internet access is increasingly essential for job searching, education, and accessing government services. Is this a strong argument?
- Yes, because it establishes that internet access serves critical civic and economic functions that libraries are designed to support. (Correct answer)
- No, because libraries should focus on books, not technology.
- No, because residents can access the internet via smartphones.
- Yes, because free services always benefit the public.
Correct answer: Yes, because it establishes that internet access serves critical civic and economic functions that libraries are designed to support.
The argument is strong because it directly ties internet access to functions—employment, education, civic engagement—that align with the public mission of libraries.
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Evaluating Argument Relevance Questions and Answers 4
Question: Should the US government subsidize electric vehicle (EV) purchases?
Argument: Electric vehicles produce zero direct emissions, reducing urban air pollution that harms public health.
Is this a strong argument?