Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Evaluating Argument Strength Questions and Answers 5

Question 1

In Watson-Glaser argument evaluation, which of the following best defines a 'weak' argument?

Accepted Answer

An argument that is minor, irrelevant, or based on emotion rather than solid reasoning

Answer

A weak argument is one that is trivial, not directly relevant, or appeals to emotion rather than offering substantive reasoning.

Question 2

Statement: 'Should the US ban the use of cell phones while driving?' Argument: 'Yes, because distracted driving caused by phone use is a leading contributor to traffic fatalities and injuries.' Is this argument strong or weak?

Accepted Answer

Strong, because it identifies a direct, significant public safety consequence

Answer

The argument is strong because it directly links the prohibited behavior to a major, well-documented public safety harm.

Question 3

Statement: 'Should the US provide free community college education?' Argument: 'No, because if college were free, students would not value it as much.' Is this argument strong or weak?

Accepted Answer

Weak, because the claim is speculative and not a substantive reason to deny access to education

Answer

The 'value' argument is speculative and minor compared to the concrete access and economic mobility benefits the policy would provide.

Question 4

Statement: 'Should the US allow terminally ill patients to legally obtain lethal medication?' Argument: 'Yes, because allowing patients to choose the timing and manner of their death preserves their dignity and reduces prolonged suffering.' Is this argument strong or weak?

Accepted Answer

Strong, because it directly addresses patient autonomy and a significant quality-of-life concern

Answer

The argument is strong because patient autonomy and the reduction of prolonged suffering are substantive, directly relevant considerations for end-of-life policy.

Question 5

Statement: 'Should the US government break up large technology monopolies?' Argument: 'No, because large tech companies sponsor many charity events and sports stadiums.' Is this argument strong or weak?

Accepted Answer

Weak, because charitable sponsorships are irrelevant to antitrust and competitive market policy

Answer

Charitable sponsorship is a trivial, irrelevant point that does not address the substantive economic and competitive concerns driving antitrust policy.

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Practice Test

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Practice Test

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Evaluating Argument Strength Questions and Answers 5