22. CR Evaluate the argument
The right answer is a question whose two answers point opposite directions for the conclusion.
Core ideas
- The right answer is a question, and its two possible answers must push the argument in opposite directions.
- Apply the yes/no test: answer the question "yes", then "no"; one should strengthen, the other weaken.
- If both answers leave the argument unchanged, the question is irrelevant no matter how on-topic it sounds.
- Anchor to the specific conclusion, not the general subject matter.
Worked example 1
Coastal Bakery's sales fell 15 percent after a rival opened nearby. The owner proposes cutting prices by 20 percent, arguing this will win back customers and restore total revenue to its previous level.
Which question is most useful for evaluating the proposal?
(A) How long has Coastal Bakery been in business?
(B) Will the price cut attract enough additional purchases to offset the lower revenue earned on each sale?
(C) Does the rival bakery also sell pastries?
Show solution
The conclusion is that revenue will return to its old level. A 20 percent price cut lowers revenue per sale, so total revenue recovers only if volume grows enough. Test (B): if yes, the plan plausibly works, strengthening it; if no, revenue stays below the old level, wrecking it. The two answers point opposite directions, so (B) evaluates the argument. (A) and (C) fail the test: any answer to them leaves the revenue math untouched. Answer: (B).
Worked example 2
The town of Osmere plans to require reflective vests for nighttime cyclists, concluding that this will substantially reduce the town's cyclist injuries.
Which question is most useful for evaluating the conclusion?
(A) What proportion of Osmere's cyclist injuries occur at night in conditions where visibility is a factor?
(B) Do neighboring towns require reflective vests?
(C) How much do reflective vests cost?
Show solution
The vests can only prevent injuries caused by cyclists not being seen at night. Test (A): if most injuries happen at night due to poor visibility, the rule targets the real problem and the conclusion is strengthened; if almost all injuries happen in daylight or from causes unrelated to visibility, the rule cannot substantially reduce injuries, weakening it. Opposite directions, so (A) is the evaluator. (B) is irrelevant comparison, and (C) concerns cost, not injury reduction. Answer: (A).
No practice questions banked for this concept yet. Check back soon.