WGU D265 CRITICAL THINKING: REASONING AND
EVIDENCE | OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT 2026/2027 Actual
Questions & Verified Answers | Advanced Analytical
Reasoning | Pass Guarantee
SECTION 1: ADVANCED ARGUMENT DECONSTRUCTION (Questions
1-25)
Competencies Tested: Identifying implicit premises, conclusions, intermediate
conclusions, argument structure (linked vs. convergent), and evaluating deductive
validity/inductive strength.
Question 1
Passage: Dr. Elena Voss argues in her recent policy paper that "Urban green spaces
demonstrably reduce ambient temperatures by 2-4°C during heat waves. Therefore,
municipalities should prioritize green infrastructure investment over traditional cooling
systems. This recommendation is warranted because heat-related mortality decreases
by approximately 15% for every degree reduction in ambient temperature, and municipal
budgets are already strained by energy costs."
Question: The relationship between the claim that "heat-related mortality decreases by
approximately 15% for every degree reduction" and the conclusion that "municipalities
should prioritize green infrastructure investment" is best characterized as:
,A) The mortality claim is the main conclusion, and the green infrastructure conclusion is
a subordinate premise.
B) The mortality claim serves as an intermediate conclusion that supports the main
conclusion through a linked argument structure.
C) The mortality claim and green infrastructure conclusion form a convergent argument
where each independently supports a broader thesis.
D) The mortality claim is a premise that directly supports the green infrastructure
conclusion without any intermediate steps.
Correct Answer: B
Detailed Rationale:
This question tests understanding of argument structure, specifically distinguishing
between linked and convergent arguments and identifying intermediate conclusions.
Logical Deconstruction:
The argument contains a complex structure with multiple layers:
● Premise 1: Urban green spaces reduce ambient temperatures by 2-4°C during
heat waves
● Intermediate Conclusion: Heat-related mortality decreases by ~15% per degree
reduction (this is derived from general research but functions here as an
intermediate step)
● Implicit Premise: Reducing heat-related mortality is a desirable municipal goal
● Main Conclusion: Municipalities should prioritize green infrastructure investment
over traditional cooling systems
Why B is Correct:
The mortality claim operates as an intermediate conclusion—it draws a connection
between temperature reduction (premise) and health outcomes, which then supports
the policy recommendation. This creates a linked argument structure where the
,intermediate conclusion and the premise about strained budgets must work together to
support the main conclusion. In linked structures, premises are dependent on each
other; remove one, and the support for the conclusion collapses.
Why A is Incorrect:
This reverses the logical hierarchy. The mortality claim cannot be the main conclusion
because the passage explicitly frames it as supporting evidence for the green
infrastructure recommendation, which is clearly marked as the primary
recommendation ("This recommendation is warranted because...").
Why C is Incorrect:
This misidentifies the structure as convergent. A convergent structure would have
independent supporting lines of evidence that could each stand alone. Here, the
temperature reduction, mortality decrease, and budget constraints are
interdependent—each links to the next in a chain rather than converging from separate
angles.
Why D is Incorrect:
While the mortality claim does support the conclusion, this option misses the
intermediate nature of the step. The mortality claim doesn't directly support the green
infrastructure conclusion; it requires the implicit premise that mortality reduction is
desirable, and it works in conjunction with budget considerations. The "without any
intermediate steps" description is inaccurate.
Question 2
Passage: In a legal brief defending a tech company's data collection practices, the
attorney writes: "Our client only collects metadata, not content. Metadata is not
personally identifiable information under current regulations. Therefore, our client's
practices comply with privacy laws. Furthermore, since users voluntarily agreed to the
, terms of service, they have implicitly consented to all data collection practices
described therein."
Question: Which of the following identifies an implicit premise required for the
argument's conclusion that "our client's practices comply with privacy laws" to follow
validly?
A) All data collection practices that collect only non-personally identifiable information
comply with privacy laws.
B) Metadata is less sensitive than content data and therefore requires less regulatory
protection.
C) Users who agree to terms of service understand the full implications of those terms.
D) Current regulations adequately protect user privacy in all circumstances.
Correct Answer: A
Detailed Rationale:
This question tests ability to identify implicit premises that are necessary for deductive
validity.
Logical Deconstruction:
The explicit argument structure is:
● Premise 1: Our client only collects metadata, not content
● Premise 2: Metadata is not personally identifiable information under current
regulations
● Conclusion: Our client's practices comply with privacy laws
Why A is Correct:
For the conclusion to follow validly, we need a connecting premise that bridges "not
personally identifiable information" to "complies with privacy laws." Option A provides
EVIDENCE | OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT 2026/2027 Actual
Questions & Verified Answers | Advanced Analytical
Reasoning | Pass Guarantee
SECTION 1: ADVANCED ARGUMENT DECONSTRUCTION (Questions
1-25)
Competencies Tested: Identifying implicit premises, conclusions, intermediate
conclusions, argument structure (linked vs. convergent), and evaluating deductive
validity/inductive strength.
Question 1
Passage: Dr. Elena Voss argues in her recent policy paper that "Urban green spaces
demonstrably reduce ambient temperatures by 2-4°C during heat waves. Therefore,
municipalities should prioritize green infrastructure investment over traditional cooling
systems. This recommendation is warranted because heat-related mortality decreases
by approximately 15% for every degree reduction in ambient temperature, and municipal
budgets are already strained by energy costs."
Question: The relationship between the claim that "heat-related mortality decreases by
approximately 15% for every degree reduction" and the conclusion that "municipalities
should prioritize green infrastructure investment" is best characterized as:
,A) The mortality claim is the main conclusion, and the green infrastructure conclusion is
a subordinate premise.
B) The mortality claim serves as an intermediate conclusion that supports the main
conclusion through a linked argument structure.
C) The mortality claim and green infrastructure conclusion form a convergent argument
where each independently supports a broader thesis.
D) The mortality claim is a premise that directly supports the green infrastructure
conclusion without any intermediate steps.
Correct Answer: B
Detailed Rationale:
This question tests understanding of argument structure, specifically distinguishing
between linked and convergent arguments and identifying intermediate conclusions.
Logical Deconstruction:
The argument contains a complex structure with multiple layers:
● Premise 1: Urban green spaces reduce ambient temperatures by 2-4°C during
heat waves
● Intermediate Conclusion: Heat-related mortality decreases by ~15% per degree
reduction (this is derived from general research but functions here as an
intermediate step)
● Implicit Premise: Reducing heat-related mortality is a desirable municipal goal
● Main Conclusion: Municipalities should prioritize green infrastructure investment
over traditional cooling systems
Why B is Correct:
The mortality claim operates as an intermediate conclusion—it draws a connection
between temperature reduction (premise) and health outcomes, which then supports
the policy recommendation. This creates a linked argument structure where the
,intermediate conclusion and the premise about strained budgets must work together to
support the main conclusion. In linked structures, premises are dependent on each
other; remove one, and the support for the conclusion collapses.
Why A is Incorrect:
This reverses the logical hierarchy. The mortality claim cannot be the main conclusion
because the passage explicitly frames it as supporting evidence for the green
infrastructure recommendation, which is clearly marked as the primary
recommendation ("This recommendation is warranted because...").
Why C is Incorrect:
This misidentifies the structure as convergent. A convergent structure would have
independent supporting lines of evidence that could each stand alone. Here, the
temperature reduction, mortality decrease, and budget constraints are
interdependent—each links to the next in a chain rather than converging from separate
angles.
Why D is Incorrect:
While the mortality claim does support the conclusion, this option misses the
intermediate nature of the step. The mortality claim doesn't directly support the green
infrastructure conclusion; it requires the implicit premise that mortality reduction is
desirable, and it works in conjunction with budget considerations. The "without any
intermediate steps" description is inaccurate.
Question 2
Passage: In a legal brief defending a tech company's data collection practices, the
attorney writes: "Our client only collects metadata, not content. Metadata is not
personally identifiable information under current regulations. Therefore, our client's
practices comply with privacy laws. Furthermore, since users voluntarily agreed to the
, terms of service, they have implicitly consented to all data collection practices
described therein."
Question: Which of the following identifies an implicit premise required for the
argument's conclusion that "our client's practices comply with privacy laws" to follow
validly?
A) All data collection practices that collect only non-personally identifiable information
comply with privacy laws.
B) Metadata is less sensitive than content data and therefore requires less regulatory
protection.
C) Users who agree to terms of service understand the full implications of those terms.
D) Current regulations adequately protect user privacy in all circumstances.
Correct Answer: A
Detailed Rationale:
This question tests ability to identify implicit premises that are necessary for deductive
validity.
Logical Deconstruction:
The explicit argument structure is:
● Premise 1: Our client only collects metadata, not content
● Premise 2: Metadata is not personally identifiable information under current
regulations
● Conclusion: Our client's practices comply with privacy laws
Why A is Correct:
For the conclusion to follow validly, we need a connecting premise that bridges "not
personally identifiable information" to "complies with privacy laws." Option A provides
