Question Set 1 Answers Flashcards
Question 1
Which of the following problems is a question of judgment that requires critical thinking? Select one.
a) What is the fastest speed at which a car can travel between two distances?
b) What is the most scenic route one might travel between two locations?
c) What is the most efficient speed at which one might travel between two locations?
d) What is the most effective and safest way to design a roadway system to achieve efficiency?
Question 1
Which of the following problems is a question of judgment that requires critical thinking? Select one.
a) What is the fastest speed at which a car can travel between two distances?
b) What is the most scenic route one might travel between two locations?
c) What is the most efficient speed at which one might travel between two locations?
d) What is the most effective and safest way to design a roadway system to achieve efficiency?
Question 2
The federal government is considering setting aside land for a new national monument. An employee in the governor’s office of the state where the monument may be designated is asked to research the possible economic impact of the designation. What critical thinking strategy should the employee employ to clarify the issue?
a) Discuss the issue with other employees in the governor’s office to see how they feel about it.
b) Determine whether the governor supports or opposes the monument designation.
c) Determine the main sources of potential information and begin research.
d) Research the economic impact of every national monument in every state.
e) Write out all arguments that both favor and oppose the monument for the governor’s review.
Question 2
The federal government is considering setting aside land for a new national monument. An employee in the governor’s office of the state where the monument may be designated is asked to research the possible economic impact of the designation. What critical thinking strategy should the employee employ to clarify the issue?
a) Discuss the issue with other employees in the governor’s office to see how they feel about it.
b) Determine whether the governor supports or opposes the monument designation.
c) Determine the main sources of potential information and begin research.
d) Research the economic impact of every national monument in every state.
e) Write out all arguments that both favor and oppose the monument for the governor’s review.
Question 2
The federal government is considering setting aside land for a new national monument. An employee in the governor’s office of the state where the monument may be designated is asked to research the possible economic impact of the designation. What critical thinking strategy should the employee employ to clarify the issue?
a) Discuss the issue with other employees in the governor’s office to see how they feel about it.
b) Determine whether the governor supports or opposes the monument designation.
c) Determine the main sources of potential information and begin research.
d) Research the economic impact of every national monument in every state.
e) Write out all arguments that both favor and oppose the monument for the governor’s review.
Question 2
The federal government is considering setting aside land for a new national monument. An employee in the governor’s office of the state where the monument may be designated is asked to research the possible economic impact of the designation. What critical thinking strategy should the employee employ to clarify the issue?
a) Discuss the issue with other employees in the governor’s office to see how they feel about it.
b) Determine whether the governor supports or opposes the monument designation.
c) Determine the main sources of potential information and begin research.
d) Research the economic impact of every national monument in every state.
e) Write out all arguments that both favor and oppose the monument for the governor’s review.
Through a bond issue, a city council has the funding to create bike lanes in the city; however, they cannot agree upon the routes and upon which streets should contain the bike lanes. Expert A has presented evidence about traffic flow and bicycle safety, concluding that bike lanes should be put on residential streets where possible and kept off the busier main corridors. Expert A’s evidence shows that this increases safety for the bikers even though it may mean they will ride longer distances. Expert B has presented evidence about traffic flow and bicycle safety that concludes that the main corridors are the better and safer choice for bike lanes because they are wider and more easily accessible. The city decides to go with Expert A’s evidence and installs the bike lanes on residential streets. Shortly after the bike lanes open, a biker is seriously injured when hit by a car backing out of a driveway.
Which of the following statements are true?
Your Answer
a) Expert A’s evidence was accurate, and expert B’s evidence was inaccurate.
b) Expert B’s evidence was accurate, and expert A’s evidence was inaccurate.
c) The evidence of both expert A and expert B was accurate.
d) The evidence of both expert A and expert B was inaccurate.
e) It is not possible to know the accuracy of either expert’s evidence from the information given.
f) Expert A’s evidence was relevant, and expert B’s evidence was irrelevant.
g) Expert B’s evidence was relevant, and expert A’s evidence was irrelevant.
h) The evidence of both experts was relevant.
i) The evidence of both experts was irrelevant.
j) It is not possible to determine relevancy of either expert’s evidence from the information given.
Correct Answer
a) Expert A’s evidence was accurate, and expert B’s evidence was inaccurate.
b) Expert B’s evidence was accurate, and expert A’s evidence was inaccurate.
c) The evidence of both expert A and expert B was accurate.
d) The evidence of both expert A and expert B was inaccurate.
e) It is not possible to know the accuracy of either expert’s evidence from the information given.
f) Expert A’s evidence was relevant, and expert B’s evidence was irrelevant.
g) Expert B’s evidence was relevant, and expert A’s evidence was irrelevant.
h) The evidence of both experts was relevant.
i) The evidence of both experts was irrelevant.
j) It is not possible to determine relevancy of either expert’s evidence from the information given.
Through a bond issue, a city council has the funding to create bike lanes in the city; however, they cannot agree upon the routes and upon which streets should contain the bike lanes. Expert A has presented evidence about traffic flow and bicycle safety, concluding that bike lanes should be put on residential streets where possible and kept off the busier main corridors. Expert A’s evidence shows that this increases safety for the bikers even though it may mean they will ride longer distances. Expert B has presented evidence about traffic flow and bicycle safety that concludes that the main corridors are the better and safer choice for bike lanes because they are wider and more easily accessible. The city decides to go with Expert A’s evidence and installs the bike lanes on residential streets. Shortly after the bike lanes open, a biker is seriously injured when hit by a car backing out of a driveway.
Which of the following statements are true?
Your Answer
a) Expert A’s evidence was accurate, and expert B’s evidence was inaccurate.
b) Expert B’s evidence was accurate, and expert A’s evidence was inaccurate.
c) The evidence of both expert A and expert B was accurate.
d) The evidence of both expert A and expert B was inaccurate.
e) It is not possible to know the accuracy of either expert’s evidence from the information given.
f) Expert A’s evidence was relevant, and expert B’s evidence was irrelevant.
g) Expert B’s evidence was relevant, and expert A’s evidence was irrelevant.
h) The evidence of both experts was relevant.
i) The evidence of both experts was irrelevant.
j) It is not possible to determine relevancy of either expert’s evidence from the information given.
Correct Answer
a) Expert A’s evidence was accurate, and expert B’s evidence was inaccurate.
b) Expert B’s evidence was accurate, and expert A’s evidence was inaccurate.
c) The evidence of both expert A and expert B was accurate.
d) The evidence of both expert A and expert B was inaccurate.
e) It is not possible to know the accuracy of either expert’s evidence from the information given.
f) Expert A’s evidence was relevant, and expert B’s evidence was irrelevant.
g) Expert B’s evidence was relevant, and expert A’s evidence was irrelevant.
h) The evidence of both experts was relevant.
i) The evidence of both experts was irrelevant.
j) It is not possible to determine relevancy of either expert’s evidence from the information given.
