3.3 Evaluate the Argument Questions
Key Takeaways
- Evaluate the Argument questions require identifying the missing empirical information needed to determine whether an argument's conclusion is logically sound or unsound.
- The Two-Way Variance Test is the definitive operational technique: providing polar opposite answers (e.g., 'Yes' vs. 'No' or 'High' vs. 'Low') to the correct choice must strengthen the conclusion under one outcome and weaken it under the opposite outcome.
- If an answer choice produces the same directional effect under both polar responses, or has no logical bearing under either, it is definitively incorrect.
- Evaluate answer choices are usually phrased as 'whether' inquiries, and the correct one targets the gap between the argument's evidence and its conclusion.
- A choice whose answer would matter only slightly, or in only one direction, is a distractor even when its topic sounds relevant.
The Executive Logic of Argument Evaluation
Evaluate the Argument questions draw on everything in the Critical Reasoning toolkit. While Strengthen questions require you to support an argument and Weaken questions require you to attack it, Evaluate questions place you in the role of an objective corporate director, consultant, or magistrate: What crucial piece of missing information must we uncover before we can determine whether this conclusion is valid or invalid?
Stem Recognition and the Evaluative Mandate
Evaluate stems are distinguished by phrasing that asks you to assess, test, or determine the significance of an inquiry:
- "Which of the following would be most useful to determine in evaluating the argument?"
- "Which of the following investigations is most important in assessing whether the plan will succeed?"
- "Information regarding which of the following would be most helpful in determining the validity of the hypothesis?"
- "In assessing the recommendation, it would be most critical to establish which of the following?"
Unlike Strengthen and Weaken questions, where answer choices are declarative statements of fact ("During the trial period, employee headcount remained constant"), Evaluate answer choices are typically formulated as inquiries, questions, or clauses beginning with 'whether' ("Whether employee headcount remained constant during the trial period").
The Two-Way Variance Test: Operational Methodology
The Two-Way Variance Test is the gold-standard analytical technique for Evaluate questions. It converts subjective ambiguity into a mechanical, binary decision rule.
Step 1: Convert the 'Whether' Clause into a Direct Polar Question
└── Change 'Whether X is greater than Y' into 'Is X greater than Y?'
Step 2: Formulate Two Diametrically Opposed Polar Responses
└── Outcome A: A definitive, extreme 'YES' (or 'SUBSTANTIALLY HIGH').
└── Outcome B: A definitive, extreme 'NO' (or 'NEGLIGIBLY LOW').
Step 3: Plug Outcome A into the Argument
└── If Outcome A strengthens the conclusion, proceed immediately to Outcome B.
Step 4: Plug Outcome B into the Argument
└── Outcome B MUST weaken the conclusion.
Decision Rule:
├── If the two polar answers produce OPPOSITE directional effects (one strengthens, one weakens) ──> CORRECT CHOICE.
└── If both answers produce the SAME effect (both strengthen, both weaken, or both neutral) ──> INCORRECT DISTRACTOR.
Step-by-Step Variance Matrix Table
To see the Two-Way Variance Test in action, consider an argument where a retail chain plans to install automated checkout kiosks to cut labor costs and boost operating profit:
| Answer Choice Under Consideration | Polar Response A | Impact on Profit Conclusion | Polar Response B | Impact on Profit Conclusion | Evaluative Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Choice 1: Whether customer satisfaction will drop drastically, causing patrons to defect to competitors | Yes, patrons will defect in massive numbers | Devastating Weaken: Lost sales destroy profits | No, patrons will embrace the kiosks willingly | Strong Strengthen: Labor savings flow directly to net income | CORRECT: Polar answers produce divergent, decisive outcomes |
| Choice 2: Whether the kiosks are manufactured domestically or imported from overseas | Yes, manufactured domestically | Neutral: Manufacturing origin has no inherent margin impact | No, imported from overseas | Neutral: Still no necessary impact on operating profitability | INCORRECT: Zero logical impact under either extreme |
| Choice 3: Whether competing retail chains already use similar kiosks | Yes, competitors already use them | Ambiguous: Does not resolve whether this firm's margins will rise | No, competitors do not use them | Ambiguous: Still fails to determine whether cost savings exceed capital outlay | INCORRECT: Fails to swing the argument directionally |
| Choice 4: Whether electricity costs to run the kiosks will exceed $50 per month | Yes, electricity will cost $55/month | Neutral: Trivial utility cost compared to full-time cashier wages | No, electricity will cost $40/month | Neutral: A $15/month variance is mathematically immaterial | INCORRECT: Micro-objection with no macro impact |
What Evaluate Questions Usually Target
Evaluate questions attach to every kind of argument, but the correct inquiry almost always sits on the argument's central assumption:
| Argument Type | What the Correct Inquiry Checks | Example Inquiry |
|---|---|---|
| Causal claim | Whether an alternative cause was present | Whether competing stores also saw sales rise during the same period |
| Generalization from a sample | Whether the sample is representative | Whether the surveyed customers resemble the chain's customers overall |
| Prediction from a trend | Whether the conditions behind the trend will continue | Whether the subsidy that drove adoption is scheduled to expire |
| Plan to reach a goal | Whether the action will achieve the goal, net of its costs | Whether the savings will exceed the cost of implementation (see Section 3.4) |
| Comparison of two groups | Whether the groups share a relevant baseline | Whether both factories produce the same volume of parts |
A useful habit: before reading the choices, state the argument's weakest link in one sentence. The correct choice usually asks about that link almost directly.
Operational Strategy for Evaluate Questions: The 4-Step Protocol
Step 1: Isolate the Specific Strategic Objective
└── Distinguish carefully between 'maximizing revenue' vs. 'maximizing profit', or 'reducing accident totals' vs. 'reducing accident rates per capita'.
Step 2: Pinpoint the Mechanism Connecting Plan to Objective
└── Determine the exact causal route through which the author expects the action to achieve the goal.
Step 3: Expose the Hidden Vulnerability
└── Identify the unaddressed risk: Is it competitive retaliation? Perverse incentives? Unaccounted overhead costs?
Step 4: Execute the Two-Way Variance Test on Contender Options
└── Apply the binary 'Yes/No' or 'High/Low' test. Confirm that one extreme guarantees success and the other guarantees failure.
Distractor Architecture in Evaluate Questions
Trap 1: The One-Way Street (Only One Polar Answer Affects the Argument)
A subtle distractor where an extreme response in one direction weakens the argument, but the opposite response does not strengthen it (or vice versa). For an option to be correct, both polar extremes must be active—one driving the probability up, the other driving it down.
Trap 2: Evaluating a Peripheral Context Detail
The option investigates a detail mentioned in the stimulus that provides general background context but does not intersect with the causal leap connecting the plan to the goal.
Trap 3: The Feasibility vs. Desirability Confusion
The option investigates whether people like the plan or find it aesthetically appealing, rather than whether the plan will mechanically achieve its objective.
Trap 4: Evaluating Absolute Metrics Instead of Margins
In business contexts, evaluating the total size of a market or the gross historical revenue of an industry is a distractor; what matters is the marginal profitability and incremental cost of the specific proposal under review.
AgriBio, a large commercial farming enterprise, plans to convert 35% of its cultivated corn acreage to planting switchgrass, a perennial bioenergy crop. Executive leadership projects that because switchgrass requires 50% less nitrogen fertilizer and 60% less irrigation than corn, and because government renewable fuel mandates are driving strong industrial demand for cellulosic biomass, the land reallocation will substantially increase AgriBio's net annual operating profits within two years. Which of the following would be most useful to determine in evaluating AgriBio's business plan?
Over the preceding eighteen months, downtown Oakport recorded a 35% increase in pedestrian-involved automobile collisions along its central commercial boulevard. In response, the city council proposed installing automated speed enforcement cameras at every boulevard intersection, citing municipal traffic records indicating that vehicle speed was a contributing factor in 70% of those pedestrian collisions. The council concluded that deploying the camera network will dramatically reduce pedestrian injuries throughout the downtown district. Which of the following investigations is most important in assessing the likelihood that the council's plan will achieve its stated objective?
Apex Commercial Bank developed an automated artificial intelligence algorithm to evaluate creditworthiness for small business commercial loans, intending to replace human loan underwriting officers. Bank executives plan to deploy the algorithmic system across all retail branches, asserting that the transition will reduce underwriting operating expenses per application by 65% while maintaining the bank's current low loan default rate of 1.8%. Which of the following would be most useful to establish in evaluating the executives' assertion?