I just completed the critical thinking test for Milbank and the evaluation of arguments section had 5 options instead of the conventional 2 options. There were no instructions either it just went on to the next section and gave options Very Strong argument, strong arguments, fairly strong argument, fairly weak argument, weak argument and very weak argument. does anyone have an instruction sheet or guidelines for these? what constitutes a strong argument compared to very strong or fairly strong, and what constitutes a fairly weak argument and the difference between family weak and strong?
Hi, I also struggled to find the right direction in these questions, and I am not sure if my approach has worked so far.
I was researching this earlier and could not find anything specific to this. However, grabbing some related concepts here and there, I realised this is similar to the 6-step scale from Likert, which is that psychometric test also largely used by law firms (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree).
In my @Milbank assessment, what I considered to mark a statement as very strong or strong etc, is a mix of persuasion strategies (logos, pathos and ethos) with the original Likert reasoning:
- Very strong if I had an unquestionable clear and persuasive argument which could reasonably persuade ANY person/bystander. It addresses the problem with no objections.
- Strong, for a quite clear argument with a valid point directly linked to the question, although some objections can be made.
- Fairly strong, for a relevant argument which might have a point to be considered but lacks substantial judgement or some logic could addresses the issue
- Fairly weak if I faced an understandable argument with grains of truth and could persuade those already inclined. However, it doesn't address the real problem from the question and appeals to emotion, values, and feelings (pathos) and doesn't bring any logic or fact to substantiate.
- Weak, for a statement which is completely unpersuasive and/or unrelated to the question. Sometimes, these statements make us consider an adjacent problem rather than focus on the real one being asked.
- Strongly weak: no logic and/or reasonable answer at all. Lacks facts, judgment, while trying to bridge this gap with manipulative/irrelevant emotion.
Again, I don't know if it worked at all, but psychologically speaking, this gave me more confidence and a kind of direction during the assessment.
