A question of this type presents a statement or proposal, followed by two arguments, usually one for it and one against. You must decide which argument, if either, is strong.
The trap is personal opinion. The proposal may be one you support or oppose, and the arguments are written to pull you towards your own view. The exam does not care what you think; it asks only whether an argument genuinely bears on the proposal and stands on its own.
An argument is strong when it does three things at once: it is relevant to the proposal, plausible on its own, and it speaks directly to whether the proposal should be adopted.
What this model omits: it does not weigh arguments against each other. Both arguments can be strong, or neither, and that is a legitimate outcome. You are grading each argument alone, not staging a debate.
Reject the emotional and the vague. Arguments that appeal to fear, tradition, or the character of the people involved are weak, however persuasive they sound. So are arguments built on words like everyone knows or it is obvious, which assert rather than reason.
| Argument | Verdict | Why |
|---|---|---|
| The change will upset many people | Weak | Vagueness and emotion, with no bearing on the merits |
| It will reduce waiting time by half | Strong | Concrete and directly on the proposal |
| We have always done it the old way | Weak | Tradition is not a reason about outcomes |
| It costs more than the budget allows | Strong | Feasibility bears directly on adoption |
| The proposer is not trustworthy | Weak | Attacks the person, not the proposal |
| It has worked in similar cities | Strong | Relevant evidence from comparable cases |
Beware the restatement. An argument that simply repeats the proposal, or the opposite of it, in different words is not an argument at all. It gives no independent reason, so it is weak.
Judge on the merits, not the outcome. An argument is strong because of its content, not because it is on your side. If the argument against a proposal you like is concrete and directly relevant, it is still strong.
Proposal: “The college should replace paper notices with a digital noticeboard.”
Argument A, for: “It will let announcements reach students instantly on their phones.” This is concrete, plausibly true, and directly supports the change. Strong.
Argument B, against: “Digital screens are a modern invention and change is always unsettling.” This rests on a vague discomfort with change rather than any specific drawback. It is emotional and general. Weak.
Now consider a different argument B, against: “A significant number of students do not own a smartphone, so some would miss notices.” This is specific and directly identifies a group who would be harmed, bearing on whether the change is a good idea. Strong.
The contrast shows the test working. The first B fails on vagueness and relevance; the second B passes because it names a real, concrete consequence of adopting the proposal.
What makes an argument strong?
Proposal: “The city should ban private cars from the old town.” Which argument against it is strong?
Proposal: “The firm should allow staff to work from home.” Which argument for it is weak?
Without looking back: what are the three marks of a strong argument, and why is a restatement weak?
The answer: relevant, plausible and directly on the proposal; a restatement gives no independent reason, so it cannot support or attack the proposal.
Fill in the blanks from memory:
A strong argument is , plausible, and directly about the proposal. An argument that appeals only to emotion or tradition is . An argument that repeats the proposal is a and adds no reason. Both arguments may be strong, so strength is judged per .
Proposal: “The university should make attendance at lectures compulsory.” Arguments: (A) “Students who attend regularly score higher, so attendance improves results.” (B) “Making it compulsory would punish students who work part-time to fund their studies.” (C) “Compulsory attendance is simply old-fashioned.” Grade each.
(A) is strong for the proposal. It offers a concrete, plausible benefit tied to outcomes, and it speaks directly to whether the policy should be adopted. The correlation-to-cause worry from the critical reasoning lesson is present, but as an argument it is still specific and directly relevant.
(B) is strong against the proposal. It names a definite group that the policy would harm and gives a specific reason. It bears directly on whether to adopt, so it is strong even if you favour compulsory attendance.
(C) is weak. Calling the idea old-fashioned is a vague judgement, not a reason about consequences or merits. It gives no concrete basis on which to accept or reject the policy.
The lesson from grading all three: strength is a property of the reasoning, not of the side it supports, and two opposing arguments can both be strong in the same item.
Arguments weigh a proposal. The next lesson takes a problem and asks what should be done about it, where the test is whether a proposed action is feasible, relevant and proportionate to the situation.