Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Evaluating Argument Strength 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Question: Should public transit be free for all riders? Argument: Yes, because free transit would reduce car usage and lower urban air pollution. This argument is:
- Strong, because it presents a direct, evidence-consistent causal chain from the policy to an environmental benefit (Correct answer)
- Weak, because free transit would attract homeless people and reduce service quality
- Strong, because public transit is already subsidized, so making it free is a small step
- Weak, because many commuters will continue driving regardless of transit cost
Correct answer: Strong, because it presents a direct, evidence-consistent causal chain from the policy to an environmental benefit
The argument is strong because research supports that cost is a barrier to transit use, and reduced car usage does lower urban pollution, creating a plausible and evidence-grounded causal chain.
Question 2: Question: Should pharmaceutical companies be required to publish the research data behind their drug trials? Argument: Yes, because independent scientists could verify results and catch errors before drugs reach patients. This argument is:
- Strong, because independent verification is a foundational principle of scientific integrity and patient safety (Correct answer)
- Weak, because companies would falsify published data if required to disclose it
- Strong, because transparency always improves all industries
- Weak, because proprietary research data is a legitimate trade secret deserving protection
Correct answer: Strong, because independent verification is a foundational principle of scientific integrity and patient safety
The argument is strong because independent replication and verification are core scientific safeguards, and the argument directly connects transparency to patient safety.
Question 3: Question: Should college athletes be paid salaries by their universities? Argument: No, because college is an academic institution, not a professional sports league. This argument is:
- Strong, because it correctly defines the purpose of a university and shows how paying athletes contradicts it
- Weak, because major college athletic programs generate hundreds of millions in revenue, making purely academic framing outdated (Correct answer)
- Strong, because student athletes already receive valuable scholarships as compensation
- Weak, because professional leagues and universities serve entirely different audiences
Correct answer: Weak, because major college athletic programs generate hundreds of millions in revenue, making purely academic framing outdated
The argument is weak because the premise that colleges are purely academic ignores the commercial reality of major athletic programs, which operate as substantial revenue-generating enterprises.
Question 4: Question: Should governments impose taxes on sugary beverages? Argument: Yes, because similar taxes on tobacco have successfully reduced smoking rates. This argument is:
- Weak, because tobacco and sugary drinks are fundamentally different products with different health impacts
- Strong, because it draws on a directly analogous, empirically successful policy precedent (Correct answer)
- Weak, because consumers will simply switch to other unhealthy beverages if taxed
- Strong, because all unhealthy products should be taxed to discourage consumption
Correct answer: Strong, because it draws on a directly analogous, empirically successful policy precedent
The argument is strong because it cites a closely analogous policy (tobacco tax) with documented success in changing consumption behavior, providing relevant empirical support for the proposal.
Question 5: Question: Should all police officers be required to wear body cameras? Argument: No, because body cameras invade the privacy of crime victims who are recorded without consent. This argument is:
- Weak, because privacy concerns are irrelevant in law enforcement contexts
- Strong, because victim privacy is a legitimate concern that the policy must address (Correct answer)
- Weak, because the privacy concern, while real, is outweighed by evidence that cameras reduce misconduct and improve accountability
- Strong, because no surveillance technology should be imposed without universal consent
Correct answer: Strong, because victim privacy is a legitimate concern that the policy must address
The argument is strong in that victim privacy is a genuine, legitimate concern — it correctly identifies a real drawback that policy designers must address, even if it may not ultimately defeat the policy.
Question 6: Question: Should the US implement a universal basic income (UBI)? Argument: Yes, because automation is eliminating millions of jobs and workers need income support. This argument is:
- Weak, because automation also creates new jobs and the net employment effect is uncertain
- Strong, because it identifies a documented technological trend with direct implications for worker income security (Correct answer)
- Weak, because UBI would discourage people from seeking employment
- Strong, because every developed country has already implemented UBI successfully
Correct answer: Strong, because it identifies a documented technological trend with direct implications for worker income security
The argument is strong because automation's displacement of workers is a documented, ongoing trend, and the argument directly connects this trend to the need for income support.
Question 7: Question: Should cities require new residential buildings to include affordable housing units? Argument: No, because developers will simply build fewer units overall if forced to include low-margin affordable units, worsening the housing shortage. This argument is:
- Weak, because developers always find ways to profit regardless of regulations
- Strong, because it identifies a plausible market mechanism by which the policy could produce the opposite of its intended effect (Correct answer)
- Weak, because affordable housing requirements have never reduced overall housing supply in practice
- Strong, because government should never regulate the private housing market
Correct answer: Strong, because it identifies a plausible market mechanism by which the policy could produce the opposite of its intended effect
The argument is strong because it identifies a coherent economic mechanism — reduced developer incentive — that could plausibly cause the policy to backfire, which is a substantive and relevant objection.
Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Evaluating Argument Strength 5
Question: Should public transit be free for all riders?
Argument: Yes, because free transit would reduce car usage and lower urban air pollution.
This argument is: