Analyzing Conclusions Questions and Answers Flashcards
6 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 6 Analyzing Conclusions Questions and Answers flashcards as text
A study found that employees who participate in wellness programs take fewer sick days. A manager concludes that wellness programs cause employees to be healthier. Which statement best evaluates this conclusion?
Answer: The conclusion may be flawed because healthier employees may self-select into wellness programs.
Healthier employees may already be more likely to join wellness programs (selection bias), meaning the correlation does not establish causation.
Statement: 'All mammals are warm-blooded. Dolphins are mammals.' Conclusion: 'Therefore, dolphins are warm-blooded.' Evaluate this conclusion.
Answer: The conclusion follows necessarily from the given statements.
This is a valid deductive syllogism: if all mammals are warm-blooded and dolphins are mammals, then dolphins must be warm-blooded.
A city council reports that after installing more streetlights, crime rates dropped by 20%. A council member concludes that the streetlights reduced crime. What is the strongest challenge to this conclusion?
Answer: Crime rates were already declining before streetlights were installed.
If crime was already trending downward, the streetlights may not be the cause of the reduction — a pre-existing trend undermines the causal claim.
Research shows that children who eat breakfast perform better academically. A school policy maker concludes that providing free breakfasts will improve all students' grades. Which conclusion is best supported?
Answer: Providing breakfasts may help students who previously skipped breakfast but may not affect those who already ate.
The benefit of breakfast likely applies mainly to students who were skipping it; those who already ate breakfast are unlikely to show additional gains.
An economist states: 'Countries with higher chocolate consumption have more Nobel Prize winners per capita.' She concludes that chocolate boosts brain function. How should this conclusion be classified?
Answer: Likely false — the conclusion confuses correlation with causation and ignores confounding variables.
Wealthier nations tend to both consume more chocolate and produce more Nobel laureates; wealth is a confounding variable, making the causal claim unfounded.
A doctor notices that patients prescribed a new drug recovered faster than historical records suggest. She concludes that the drug is effective. What is the primary weakness in this conclusion?
Answer: There is no control group, so other factors (better nursing, newer equipment) may explain the faster recovery.
Without a concurrent control group, improvements in standard of care, patient selection, or other factors could explain the faster recovery rather than the drug.