Watson Glaser Arguments Section – The Ultimate Guide to Logic-First Thinking [Updated 2025]
•
Watson Glaser Arguments Section Overview
The Arguments section of the Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal measures your ability to evaluate whether arguments are relevant and logically support a given claim. This section isn't about opinions — it's about analysing how well a statement backs up a specific proposal. If you're targeting roles in law, business strategy, public policy, or consulting, this section is critical. It reflects how you reason under pressure, separate strong logic from fluff, and identify persuasive versus emotional arguments.
How the Arguments Section Works – Question Format Explained
Each question includes:
A short statement or proposal
One or more arguments related to that statement
Your task: Label each argument as Strong or Weak
A Strong argument:
Is directly relevant
Provides logical and significant support to the statement
A Weak argument:
Is irrelevant, emotional, or based on faulty reasoning
May be true, but doesn’t actually help support the claim
You don’t need to decide if the statement or argument is true in the real world — just whether the argument logically supports the claim.
Common Challenges in the Arguments Section
Allowing personal opinion to interfere You're not being asked what you agree with — you're being asked what is logically strong.
Mistaking emotional force for logical strength Just because something feels persuasive doesn’t mean it’s relevant.
Overthinking or underthinking relevance The test is deliberately subtle. Stick to basic logic.
Judging truth instead of logical relevance Many test-takers try to verify whether the argument is factually correct. That’s not the goal.
Top Tips for the Watson Glaser Arguments Section
Dive into our Free Watson Glaser Arguments Questions and discover four practical tips that’ll boost your confidence with every argument.
For each tip, you’ll try out a real question and get a clear, friendly breakdown.
Complete the quiz, and you’ll unlock every answer along with easy-to-follow, step-by-step explanations.
Get hands-on with our Free Watson Glaser Arguments Quiz—you’ll learn five straightforward tips, each paired with a sample question and a clear breakdown.
Think of it as a friendly guide that walks you through every step, so you can spot strong versus weak arguments with ease—and boost your reasoning skills in no time.
1
Read each question carefully before selecting your answer.
2
Navigate between questions using the Previous/Next buttons.
3
Submit your quiz to receive detailed results and explanations.
Tip number 1:Start with the definition of strength
A strong argument = directly relevant + materially supports the statement.
A strong argument must be:
Directly relevant to the question
Materially supportive — it gives weight to the proposal, not just an opinion or side note
Start with the Definition of Strength Tip - Question 1 of 2
Should the city build more dedicated cycling lanes?
Argument:
Yes, because cycling reduces traffic congestion and improves air quality.
Start with the Definition of Strength Tip - Question 2 of 2
Should schools implement a uniform dress code for students?
Argument:
No, because uniforms are boring and students don’t like wearing them.
Tip number 2:Ignore emotional or dramatic phrasing
Words like “unacceptable,” “outrageous,” “clearly,” “obviously,” or “everyone knows” usually signal emotional reasoning, not logical support. Such arguments tend to be weak, even if they sound passionate.
Ignore emotional or dramatic phrasing Tip - Question 1 of 2
Should schools ban the use of smartphones during classroom hours?
Argument:
Yes, because it’s outrageous that students are allowed to text their friends instead of paying attention to the teacher.
Ignore emotional or dramatic phrasing Tip - Question 2 of 2
Should the government invest more in public transportation infrastructure?
Argument:
Yes, because improving public transportation reduces road congestion, lowers emissions, and provides low-cost commuting options for citizens.
Tip number 3:Ask the persuasion test
Would this argument help persuade someone undecided about the issue? If not, it’s probably weak.
Ask the persuasion test Tip - Question 1 of 2
Should the government provide tax incentives for companies that reduce their carbon emissions?
Argument:
Yes, because tax incentives lower the financial barrier to green innovation and make it more likely that companies will adopt environmentally sustainable practices.
Ask the persuasion test Tip - Question 2 of 2
Should the government provide tax incentives for companies that reduce their carbon emissions?
Argument:
No, because climate change is always being discussed in the news and people are tired of hearing about it.
Tip number 4:Use binary logic
It either does or does not support the statement. There’s no maybe.
An argument either does support the conclusion or it does not.
There is no grey area or “kind of.” If an argument is even partially off-topic or irrelevant, it is weak.
Use binary logic Tip - Question 1 of 2
Should cities invest in expanding public parks?
Argument:
Yes, because studies show that access to green space improves residents’ mental health and reduces stress levels.
Use binary logic Tip - Question 2 of 2
Should schools ban smartphones during lessons to improve student concentration?
Argument:
Yes; smartphones distract learners, so banning them might improve focus.
Quiz Complete!
Keep practicing to improve your score.
0%
Your Score
8
Total Pages
RETRY
Result
Review Your Answers
Question 1
Should the city build more dedicated cycling lanes?
Argument:
Yes, because cycling reduces traffic congestion and improves air quality.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Strong Argument
EXPLANATION
Answer: ✅ Strong Argument
Explanation:
This argument is:
*Directly relevant to the question — it addresses outcomes of building more cycling lanes.
*Materially supportive — it provides social (air quality) and practical (traffic congestion) justifications for the proposed measure.
It doesn’t rely on emotion or speculation. Instead, it presents clear, cause-effect benefits that strengthen the case for the action.
➡️ According to the definition of a strong argument (relevant + supportive), this argument is strong.
Question 2
Should schools implement a uniform dress code for students?
Argument:
No, because uniforms are boring and students don’t like wearing them.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Weak Argument
EXPLANATION
Answer: ❌ Weak Argument
Explanation:
This argument is:
Not materially supportive — it’s based on a subjective opinion (“boring”) and emotional preference (“don’t like”)
Not directly relevant to the policy’s broader aims — such as discipline, equality, or focus
It fails the definition of strength because it neither presents a serious consequence nor addresses the core issue (the value or impact of dress codes in education).
➡️ Therefore, this is a weak argument.
Question 3
Should schools ban the use of smartphones during classroom hours?
Argument:
Yes, because it’s outrageous that students are allowed to text their friends instead of paying attention to the teacher.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Weak Argument
EXPLANATION
Explanation:
This argument uses emotionally charged language (“outrageous”) to provoke a reaction rather than providing objective, relevant reasoning.
It:
*Does not offer evidence or consequences (e.g. impact on learning outcomes)
*Focuses on moral outrage, not on practical or educational implications
*Relies on an opinion-based claim rather than a persuasive, fact-driven rationale
➡️ Because it is emotionally framed and lacks substantive support, this is a weak argument.
If an argument feels complex or abstract, simplify it to test whether it’s actually relevant and supportive.
Question 4
Should the government invest more in public transportation infrastructure?
Argument:
Yes, because improving public transportation reduces road congestion, lowers emissions, and provides low-cost commuting options for citizens.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Strong Argument
EXPLANATION
This argument may seem wordy at first, but rephrased in plain terms, it says:
“Better public transport means fewer cars, less pollution, and cheaper travel.”
That makes it clear:
It’s directly relevant to the question.
It offers specific social and economic benefits: less traffic, environmental improvement, and financial accessibility.
It gives logical, practical reasons to support investment in public transit.
➡️ Because it’s both relevant and materially supportive, this is a strong argument — even if the original version sounded more technical.
Question 5
Should the government provide tax incentives for companies that reduce their carbon emissions?
Argument:
Yes, because tax incentives lower the financial barrier to green innovation and make it more likely that companies will adopt environmentally sustainable practices.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Strong Argument
EXPLANATION
✅ Answer: Strong Argument
Explanation:
*This argument is practical, relevant, and specific.
*It explains how the policy would work and why it would be effective.
*If someone were undecided, this reasoning could reasonably persuade them — it provides a material benefit(financial incentive) and a clear impact (more sustainable practices).
➡️ Therefore, this is a strong argument.
Question 6
Should the government provide tax incentives for companies that reduce their carbon emissions?
Argument:
No, because climate change is always being discussed in the news and people are tired of hearing about it.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Weak Argument
EXPLANATION
❌ Answer: Weak Argument
Explanation:
*This argument does not address whether tax incentives are effective or fair.
*It focuses on public fatigue, which is not a valid reason to reject a policy aimed at solving a critical issue.
*An undecided person would not be persuaded by emotional exhaustion — it’s not a compelling or relevant point.
➡️ Therefore, this is a weak argument.
Question 7
Should cities invest in expanding public parks?
Argument:
Yes, because studies show that access to green space improves residents’ mental health and reduces stress levels.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Strong Argument
EXPLANATION
✅ Answer: Strong Argument
Explanation:
This argument directly relates to the benefit of the proposed action (expanding parks).
It gives evidence-based reasoning that is relevant and persuasive.
There’s no ambiguity: it clearly supports the “yes” position with a valid cause-and-effect justification.
➡️ According to binary logic: it does support the claim, so it’s a strong argument.
Question 8
Should schools ban smartphones during lessons to improve student concentration?
Argument:
Yes; smartphones distract learners, so banning them might improve focus.
YOUR ANSWER
Not answered(INCORRECT)
CORRECT ANSWER
Weak Argument
EXPLANATION
Keyed Answer: Weak Argument
Explanation
Under the “binary logic” tip, an argument either does support the statement or it does not — there’s no “might”. This proposed argument uses hedged language (“might”) and appeals to a plausible but unproven link.
Because it fails to assert a direct, important, and evidence-backed connection between the ban and improved concentration, it is only tentative and therefore weak. In Watson Glaser terms, any uncertainty or partial relevance converts the claim from a qualifying reason into a weak argument.
How to Spot Weak vs Strong Argument (with Examples)
Example 1: Statement: The city should invest more in public transportation.
Argument A: This would reduce traffic congestion and pollution. ✅ Strong – clearly relevant and supports the goal of the statement.
Argument B: Some buses run late during snowstorms. ❌ Weak – this is a minor, situational complaint and doesn’t relate directly to the proposal.
Example 2: Statement: University education should be free.
Argument A: Free university would make education accessible to all income levels. ✅ Strong – supports the claim with a clear rationale.
Argument B: Some students do not value their education. ❌ Weak – this doesn’t directly oppose or support the proposal.
Watson Glaser Arguments Hacks to Save Time and Avoid Mistakes
Eliminate obviously irrelevant arguments first Save time by cutting out anything that clearly doesn’t relate to the proposal.
Rephrase arguments in simple terms If an argument feels too abstract, rewrite it in plain English to clarify its value.
Look for the logical link Ask: Does this argument give a reason to believe the statement is a good idea? If yes, it’s strong.
Trust structure over intuition Focus on form, not feeling. Test makers design wrong answers to feel tempting.
Use TestRocket.ai’s breakdowns Our platform shows you exactly why an argument is strong or weak — so you build intuition backed by structure.
Final Thoughts: Master the Art of Logical Relevance
The Arguments section isn’t about what you believe — it’s about what’s logically sound. With regular practice, you’ll start to see how easily weak arguments crumble and how strong ones carry weight. TestRocket.ai helps you speed up that learning curve with guided explanations, instant feedback, and timed simulations tailored to the Watson Glaser format.
FAQs: Watson Glaser Arguments Section
What distinguishes a strong argument from a weak one?
A strong argument is directly relevant to the statement and provides clear, logical support. A weak argument may be true but is irrelevant, emotional, or based on faulty reasoning.
Do I need to judge the factual accuracy of the arguments?
No. Treat every argument as factually true and focus solely on whether it logically supports or weakens the claim.
How can I quickly eliminate weak arguments?
Scan for relevance: if an argument doesn’t directly address the proposal or is based on feelings rather than logic, mark it weak immediately.
Can a single weak point invalidate an argument?
Yes. If any part of an argument fails to support the statement, the entire argument is considered weak.
What role do “emotional” appeals play in the test?
Emotional or persuasive language may feel convincing but does not equal logical strength. Such arguments are typically weak.
How do I handle arguments that mix relevance and fluff?
Break the argument into its core claim and supporting details. If the core claim is relevant and logical, it’s strong; if it relies on fluff, it’s weak.
What’s the best way to practice for this section?
Use timed drills and realistic questions—like those on TestRocket.ai—to build speed, learn to spot relevance instantly, and review structured explanations after each question.
Are all arguments in the Watson Glaser test equally tricky?
Not quite. Some arguments are deliberately written to look convincing but hide irrelevance or emotional bias. Others are short and straightforward.
The challenge is learning to spot the subtle weak points fast. That’s why TestRocket.ai provides graded practice questions, from simple to advanced, so you build confidence step by step.
Do I need specialist knowledge to judge arguments?
No — and that’s the trap many candidates fall into.
You’re not asked to decide if the argument is true in the real world, only whether it’s logically strong or weak based on the question.
Training with TestRocket.ai keeps you focused only on logic, not outside knowledge.
What’s the difference between a strong argument and a persuasive one?
A strong argument is logical and relevant.
A persuasive argument may use emotion, style, or clever phrasing, but still be weak logically.
The Watson Glaser test rewards logic, not persuasion.
On TestRocket.ai, you’ll see side-by-side examples that teach you how to tell the difference.
How do time limits affect the Arguments section?
With about 30 minutes for the whole test, you’ll only have seconds per question.
That’s why it’s essential to develop a quick “logic filter.”
Regular practice on TestRocket.ai helps you train that filter so you don’t waste time overthinking.
Can a weak argument ever still be considered important?
Yes — and that’s what makes this section challenging.
Sometimes a weak argument touches on a relevant point but doesn’t go deep enough to be classed as strong.
The nuance is subtle, and that’s exactly the skill employers want to measure.
Practising with detailed explanations on TestRocket.ai will help you master this balance.
Why do employers focus so much on the Arguments section?
Because it shows how you’ll think in the real world: separating strong reasoning from weak noise.
In law, finance, and consulting, this skill is critical.
Performing well in this section tells employers you can cut through bias and make clear, logical decisions.
Related articles to Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Test
Join our growing community of successful candidates who aced their tests with TestRocket's AI-powered preparation. Start practicing today with our 30-day money-back guarantee.