Evaluating Argument Relevance Flashcards
7 cards from real Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 7 Evaluating Argument Relevance flashcards as text
Statement: 'Should the death penalty be abolished in all US states?' Argument: 'Yes, because studies have found no consistent evidence that capital punishment deters violent crime more effectively than life imprisonment.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Strong, because it directly challenges a major rationale used to justify capital punishment
The argument is strong because deterrence is a central justification for the death penalty, and evidence against it is directly relevant.
Statement: 'Should all US citizens be required to vote?' Argument: 'No, because forcing citizens to vote violates the freedom to abstain, which is itself a form of political expression.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Strong, because it identifies a rights-based conflict directly relevant to compulsory voting
The argument is strong because it directly addresses a constitutional tension at the heart of the mandatory voting debate.
Statement: 'Should standardized testing be eliminated from college admissions?' Argument: 'Yes, because the SAT was originally developed to identify military officer candidates, not college readiness.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Weak, because the test's original purpose does not determine its current validity for admissions
The argument is weak because the historical origin of a test does not determine whether it is currently a valid measure of college readiness.
Statement: 'Should ride-sharing companies be required to classify drivers as employees rather than contractors?' Argument: 'Yes, because employee classification entitles drivers to benefits like overtime pay, health insurance, and unemployment protections.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Strong, because it identifies concrete protections directly at stake in the classification decision
The argument is strong because it specifies real, relevant legal benefits that the classification change would confer on drivers.
Statement: 'Should the US require a national ID card for all citizens?' Argument: 'No, because other countries use national ID cards and still have high rates of identity theft.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Weak, because identity theft rates abroad may reflect many unrelated factors
The argument is weak because correlating identity theft rates in other countries to a US national ID proposal ignores many confounding variables.
Statement: 'Should pharmaceutical companies be required to cap drug prices?' Argument: 'Yes, because millions of Americans skip prescribed medications due to cost, leading to preventable hospitalizations.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Strong, because it links high prices to a direct, measurable public health harm
The argument is strong because it demonstrates a direct causal chain from high drug prices to a concrete, relevant public health outcome.
Statement: 'Should animals be banned from use in cosmetic testing?' Argument: 'No, because cosmetic animal testing has been practiced for over 80 years.' Is this argument strong or weak?
Answer: Weak, because the duration of a practice does not justify its continuation
The argument is weak because the length of time a practice has existed is not a logical reason to continue it — this is an appeal to tradition.