Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Evaluating Argument Relevance Questions and Answers 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Question: Should private gun ownership be more strictly regulated in the US? Argument: The Second Amendment was written at a time when firearms technology was vastly different from today. Is this a strong argument?
- No, because the historical context of the amendment is a separate issue from whether stricter regulation is warranted now. (Correct answer)
- Yes, because outdated laws should always be revised.
- Yes, because modern firearms are more dangerous than muskets.
- No, because the Second Amendment cannot be interpreted differently over time.
Correct answer: No, because the historical context of the amendment is a separate issue from whether stricter regulation is warranted now.
The argument is weak because the historical origins of the Second Amendment do not, by themselves, constitute a reason to support or oppose stricter regulation today.
Question 2: Question: Should standardized testing be eliminated from college admissions? Argument: Standardized test scores correlate with family income, suggesting they measure socioeconomic advantage rather than academic potential. Is this a strong argument?
- Yes, because it provides a directly relevant critique of whether standardized tests measure what they are supposed to measure for admissions purposes. (Correct answer)
- No, because correlation does not prove causation.
- No, because colleges need some objective measure for comparison.
- Yes, because test scores are always biased.
Correct answer: Yes, because it provides a directly relevant critique of whether standardized tests measure what they are supposed to measure for admissions purposes.
The argument is strong because if tests measure wealth rather than academic ability, they are not a valid tool for the purpose stated—assessing academic potential for admissions.
Question 3: Question: Should the US adopt ranked-choice voting for national elections? Argument: Ranked-choice voting has been used successfully in several US cities and states without causing voter confusion. Is this a strong argument?
- Yes, because domestic evidence of successful implementation directly addresses concerns about feasibility at the national level. (Correct answer)
- No, because city elections are simpler than national elections.
- No, because changing voting systems is always disruptive.
- Yes, because any voting reform improves democracy.
Correct answer: Yes, because domestic evidence of successful implementation directly addresses concerns about feasibility at the national level.
The argument is strong because real-world US examples of successful implementation are directly relevant to assessing the feasibility of national adoption.
Question 4: Question: Should junk food advertising be banned during children's television programming? Argument: Children under age 8 often cannot distinguish between advertising content and regular programming. Is this a strong argument?
- Yes, because the inability to recognize ads as persuasive content makes children a uniquely vulnerable audience, directly justifying protective regulation. (Correct answer)
- No, because parents are responsible for monitoring what their children watch.
- No, because children's television already has content standards.
- Yes, because all advertising manipulates its audience.
Correct answer: Yes, because the inability to recognize ads as persuasive content makes children a uniquely vulnerable audience, directly justifying protective regulation.
The argument is strong because it identifies a specific developmental vulnerability in young children that is directly relevant to whether they can be protected by advertising restrictions.
Question 5: Question: Should cryptocurrency be accepted as legal tender by the US government? Argument: Bitcoin's price has increased dramatically over the past decade, making early investors very wealthy. Is this a strong argument?
- No, because past investment returns are irrelevant to whether a currency is suitable for use as stable legal tender. (Correct answer)
- Yes, because proven value growth indicates financial reliability.
- Yes, because profitable assets should be recognized by governments.
- No, because cryptocurrency is too new to be trusted.
Correct answer: No, because past investment returns are irrelevant to whether a currency is suitable for use as stable legal tender.
The argument is weak because investment appreciation does not address the stability and reliability required for a legal tender currency used in everyday transactions.
Question 6: Question: Should the US expand offshore oil drilling to reduce energy costs for consumers? Argument: Offshore drilling operations have resulted in major environmental disasters, including large-scale oil spills. Is this a strong argument?
- Yes, because documented environmental risks are directly relevant to evaluating whether expanding offshore drilling is wise policy. (Correct answer)
- No, because modern technology has made oil spills less likely.
- No, because energy costs are more important than environmental concerns.
- Yes, because all fossil fuel extraction is harmful.
Correct answer: Yes, because documented environmental risks are directly relevant to evaluating whether expanding offshore drilling is wise policy.
The argument is strong because historical evidence of environmental disasters is directly relevant to assessing the risks of expanding the same type of operations.
Question 7: Question: Should college athletes be paid salaries by their universities? Argument: Many college athletes generate millions of dollars in revenue for their schools through ticket sales and media deals. Is this a strong argument?
- Yes, because it establishes a direct economic relationship between the athletes' labor and institutional revenue, supporting a claim to compensation. (Correct answer)
- No, because college is primarily an educational environment.
- No, because athletes already receive scholarships as compensation.
- Yes, because professional athletes are paid, so college athletes should be too.
Correct answer: Yes, because it establishes a direct economic relationship between the athletes' labor and institutional revenue, supporting a claim to compensation.
The argument is strong because demonstrating that athletes are the source of significant institutional revenue directly supports the claim that they deserve a share of that compensation.
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Evaluating Argument Relevance Questions and Answers 5
Question: Should private gun ownership be more strictly regulated in the US?
Argument: The Second Amendment was written at a time when firearms technology was vastly different from today.
Is this a strong argument?