Evaluating Argument Strength Questions and Answers Flashcards

Question: 'Should countries adopt universal basic income (UBI)?' Strong or weak: 'A UBI pilot in Finland showed participants had improved wellbeing and no reduction in work incentives.'

Answer: Strong — empirical evidence from a controlled pilot directly addresses two major concerns about UBI: wellbeing effects and work disincentives.

A controlled UBI pilot addressing the two most-cited objections (work disincentives and cost-benefit on wellbeing) provides directly relevant empirical evidence for the policy debate.

Question: 'Should governments mandate physical education in schools every day?' Strong or weak: 'Daily physical activity has been shown in multiple studies to improve students' cognitive function, concentration, and academic performance.'

Answer: Strong — research directly linking physical activity to academic outcomes addresses the educational mission of schools.

Evidence that physical activity improves cognitive function and academic performance directly answers any argument that PE competes with academic time — it shows they are complementary.

Question: 'Should social media platforms be required to remove misinformation within 24 hours?' Strong or weak: 'Platforms currently lack the technical capacity to accurately identify misinformation at scale within 24 hours.'

Answer: Strong — identifying a technical impossibility directly undermines the feasibility of the proposed policy.

A policy that is technically infeasible cannot achieve its aims — identifying the technical limitation is a direct and strong argument against the specific proposal as written.

Question: 'Should governments ban cigarette sales entirely?' Strong or weak: 'Tobacco companies employ hundreds of thousands of people worldwide whose jobs would be at risk.'

Answer: Strong — economic disruption to employment is a directly relevant consideration in any ban analysis.

Employment disruption is a substantial, directly relevant economic consideration that policymakers must weigh in any total ban — it addresses the real-world cost dimension of the policy.

Question: 'Should governments require all new buildings to meet net-zero carbon standards?' Strong or weak: 'Net-zero building standards would increase construction costs by 5-20%, potentially reducing housing affordability.'

Answer: Strong — cost increases affecting housing affordability directly address a major consequence of the policy.

Specific cost impacts on housing affordability are a directly relevant, quantified concern that policymakers must address when evaluating a construction standard mandate.

Question: 'Should governments fund space exploration programs?' Strong or weak: 'Space exploration has historically produced technological spin-offs — including GPS, memory foam, and scratch-resistant lenses — that have broad civilian benefits.'

Answer: Strong — documented spin-off benefits directly address the public value of investing in space exploration.

Documented technological spin-offs with broad civilian applications provide concrete evidence of public benefit from space investment, directly addressing the return on public funding.