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)
This section evaluates your ability to identify implicit premises, conclusions,
intermediate conclusions, argument structures (linked vs. convergent), and assess
deductive validity and inductive strength in complex arguments.
Question 1
Passage: "The city council must reject the proposed zoning ordinance. While it would
increase affordable housing units by 15%, the ordinance relies on a tax incentive that
sunsets after five years. Once the incentive expires, developers will abandon these
projects, leaving neighborhoods with half-finished construction and declining property
values. Furthermore, the city's own economic impact analysis admits the long-term
revenue loss would force cuts to essential services."
Question: The argument's conclusion is supported by which structure of reasoning?
A) A single linked argument where both premises must be true for the conclusion to
follow
B) A convergent argument where each premise provides independent support for the
conclusion
C) A chain argument where the first premise supports an intermediate conclusion that
supports the final conclusion
,D) An argument from authority based on the city's economic analysis
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: This question tests understanding of argument structure, specifically linked
versus convergent arguments. A convergent argument (also called multiple or
independent) occurs when two or more premises each provide separate, independent
support for the conclusion—if one premise fails, the others still support the conclusion.
A linked argument requires all premises to work together jointly.
Deconstructing the passage: The conclusion is "The city council must reject the
proposed zoning ordinance." Two independent premises support this: (1) the tax
incentive sunset will cause developer abandonment, leaving blight and declining values;
and (2) the long-term revenue loss will force service cuts. Each premise alone provides
sufficient reason to reject the ordinance—the blight argument doesn't depend on the
revenue argument, and vice versa. This makes the structure convergent.
Choice A is incorrect because the premises are not linked; they don't depend on each
other to support the conclusion. Choice C is incorrect because there is no intermediate
conclusion—the premises directly support the final conclusion without a chain structure.
Choice D is incorrect because while the city's analysis is mentioned, it's cited as
evidence for one premise, not as the primary support structure; the argument doesn't
rest on the authority of the analysis itself but on the factual claims within it.
Question 2
Passage: "Dr. Chen's new antibiotic should receive fast-track FDA approval. All
medications that demonstrate 95% efficacy against resistant infections with minimal
side effects deserve fast-track status. Dr. Chen's antibiotic meets these criteria, as
,confirmed by Phase III trials. Additionally, the CDC has classified the target pathogen as
an urgent antimicrobial resistance threat."
Question: Which of the following identifies the implicit assumption required for the
argument to be deductively valid?
A) The CDC's classification system is scientifically rigorous
B) Fast-track approval is the most efficient regulatory pathway
C) Dr. Chen's Phase III trials were methodologically sound
D) All medications that deserve fast-track status should receive it
Correct Answer: D
Rationale: This question tests identification of implicit premises in deductive
arguments. For a deductive argument to be valid, the conclusion must follow
necessarily from the premises. The argument's explicit structure is: (1) All medications
with 95% efficacy and minimal side effects deserve fast-track status; (2) Dr. Chen's
antibiotic has these properties; (3) [Implicit] Therefore, Dr. Chen's antibiotic deserves
fast-track status; (4) [Conclusion] Therefore, Dr. Chen's antibiotic should receive
fast-track approval.
The gap between "deserves fast-track status" and "should receive fast-track approval"
represents a missing premise. For the conclusion to follow necessarily, we must
assume that what deserves fast-track status should actually receive it (the normative
bridge between deserts and action).
Choice A is incorrect because the CDC classification provides additional support but
isn't necessary for the deductive validity of the core argument about efficacy. Choice B
is incorrect because efficiency of the pathway isn't relevant to whether the antibiotic
should receive approval, only whether it deserves it. Choice C, while important for the
truth of premise 2, isn't required for validity—validity concerns the logical structure, not
, the actual truth of premises. The argument could be valid even if the trials were flawed
(though unsound). Choice D provides the necessary bridge between the descriptive
claim about what the antibiotic deserves and the normative conclusion about what
should happen.
Question 3
Passage: "Universal basic income (UBI) pilots have failed everywhere they've been tried.
In Finland, the trial showed no significant employment impact. In Ontario, the program
was canceled before completion due to cost overruns. In Stockton, California, the
sample size was too small to draw meaningful conclusions. Therefore, UBI is not a
viable solution to economic inequality."
Question: Which of the following most accurately describes the logical relationship
between the premises and the conclusion?
A) The argument is deductively valid because the examples cover diverse geographic
and economic contexts
B) The argument is inductively strong but deductively invalid, as the conclusion makes a
universal claim based on limited samples
C) The argument commits the fallacy of composition by assuming properties of parts
apply to the whole
D) The argument is sound because each premise is factually accurate
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: This question tests evaluation of inductive strength versus deductive validity.
Deductive validity requires that if premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
Inductive strength concerns whether premises make the conclusion probable.
The argument moves from specific cases (Finland, Ontario, Stockton) to a universal
conclusion about UBI everywhere. This is enumerative induction—generalizing from
EVIDENCE | OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT 2026/2027 Actual
Questions & Verified Answers | Advanced Analytical
Reasoning | Pass Guarantee
SECTION 1: ADVANCED ARGUMENT DECONSTRUCTION (Questions
1-25)
This section evaluates your ability to identify implicit premises, conclusions,
intermediate conclusions, argument structures (linked vs. convergent), and assess
deductive validity and inductive strength in complex arguments.
Question 1
Passage: "The city council must reject the proposed zoning ordinance. While it would
increase affordable housing units by 15%, the ordinance relies on a tax incentive that
sunsets after five years. Once the incentive expires, developers will abandon these
projects, leaving neighborhoods with half-finished construction and declining property
values. Furthermore, the city's own economic impact analysis admits the long-term
revenue loss would force cuts to essential services."
Question: The argument's conclusion is supported by which structure of reasoning?
A) A single linked argument where both premises must be true for the conclusion to
follow
B) A convergent argument where each premise provides independent support for the
conclusion
C) A chain argument where the first premise supports an intermediate conclusion that
supports the final conclusion
,D) An argument from authority based on the city's economic analysis
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: This question tests understanding of argument structure, specifically linked
versus convergent arguments. A convergent argument (also called multiple or
independent) occurs when two or more premises each provide separate, independent
support for the conclusion—if one premise fails, the others still support the conclusion.
A linked argument requires all premises to work together jointly.
Deconstructing the passage: The conclusion is "The city council must reject the
proposed zoning ordinance." Two independent premises support this: (1) the tax
incentive sunset will cause developer abandonment, leaving blight and declining values;
and (2) the long-term revenue loss will force service cuts. Each premise alone provides
sufficient reason to reject the ordinance—the blight argument doesn't depend on the
revenue argument, and vice versa. This makes the structure convergent.
Choice A is incorrect because the premises are not linked; they don't depend on each
other to support the conclusion. Choice C is incorrect because there is no intermediate
conclusion—the premises directly support the final conclusion without a chain structure.
Choice D is incorrect because while the city's analysis is mentioned, it's cited as
evidence for one premise, not as the primary support structure; the argument doesn't
rest on the authority of the analysis itself but on the factual claims within it.
Question 2
Passage: "Dr. Chen's new antibiotic should receive fast-track FDA approval. All
medications that demonstrate 95% efficacy against resistant infections with minimal
side effects deserve fast-track status. Dr. Chen's antibiotic meets these criteria, as
,confirmed by Phase III trials. Additionally, the CDC has classified the target pathogen as
an urgent antimicrobial resistance threat."
Question: Which of the following identifies the implicit assumption required for the
argument to be deductively valid?
A) The CDC's classification system is scientifically rigorous
B) Fast-track approval is the most efficient regulatory pathway
C) Dr. Chen's Phase III trials were methodologically sound
D) All medications that deserve fast-track status should receive it
Correct Answer: D
Rationale: This question tests identification of implicit premises in deductive
arguments. For a deductive argument to be valid, the conclusion must follow
necessarily from the premises. The argument's explicit structure is: (1) All medications
with 95% efficacy and minimal side effects deserve fast-track status; (2) Dr. Chen's
antibiotic has these properties; (3) [Implicit] Therefore, Dr. Chen's antibiotic deserves
fast-track status; (4) [Conclusion] Therefore, Dr. Chen's antibiotic should receive
fast-track approval.
The gap between "deserves fast-track status" and "should receive fast-track approval"
represents a missing premise. For the conclusion to follow necessarily, we must
assume that what deserves fast-track status should actually receive it (the normative
bridge between deserts and action).
Choice A is incorrect because the CDC classification provides additional support but
isn't necessary for the deductive validity of the core argument about efficacy. Choice B
is incorrect because efficiency of the pathway isn't relevant to whether the antibiotic
should receive approval, only whether it deserves it. Choice C, while important for the
truth of premise 2, isn't required for validity—validity concerns the logical structure, not
, the actual truth of premises. The argument could be valid even if the trials were flawed
(though unsound). Choice D provides the necessary bridge between the descriptive
claim about what the antibiotic deserves and the normative conclusion about what
should happen.
Question 3
Passage: "Universal basic income (UBI) pilots have failed everywhere they've been tried.
In Finland, the trial showed no significant employment impact. In Ontario, the program
was canceled before completion due to cost overruns. In Stockton, California, the
sample size was too small to draw meaningful conclusions. Therefore, UBI is not a
viable solution to economic inequality."
Question: Which of the following most accurately describes the logical relationship
between the premises and the conclusion?
A) The argument is deductively valid because the examples cover diverse geographic
and economic contexts
B) The argument is inductively strong but deductively invalid, as the conclusion makes a
universal claim based on limited samples
C) The argument commits the fallacy of composition by assuming properties of parts
apply to the whole
D) The argument is sound because each premise is factually accurate
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: This question tests evaluation of inductive strength versus deductive validity.
Deductive validity requires that if premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
Inductive strength concerns whether premises make the conclusion probable.
The argument moves from specific cases (Finland, Ontario, Stockton) to a universal
conclusion about UBI everywhere. This is enumerative induction—generalizing from
