UCAT Decision Making: How to Answer Strongest Argument Questions
What Are “Strongest Argument” Questions?
In UCAT Decision Making, Strongest Argument questions (also known as Recognising Assumptions or Evaluating Arguments questions) present you with a problem statement or proposal, followed by several arguments either supporting or opposing that statement. Your task is to select the single strongest argument from the options. These questions assess your ability to think critically – to judge the strength of arguments, spot assumptions, and ignore irrelevant or biased reasoning. This skill is vital for aspiring doctors and dentists, as you’ll often need to evaluate evidence and arguments objectively in clinical decisions.
Format: Typically, you’ll see a question like “Should [X action] be done to achieve [Y outcome]?” with answer options labelled A, B, C, D. Each option is an argument (“Yes, because….” or “No, because….”). You must pick which argument is most persuasive and logically strongest. There is only one correct answer, so it’s about finding the best argument from the list.
Example scenario: “Should we have a minimum speed limit in order to improve road safety?” The answer options might include arguments for and against the idea. One option will stand out as the most relevant and convincing argument – that’s the one you need to identify and select. (We’ll dissect this exact example later in the guide.)
Why Do They Matter for Med School Applicants?
Strong critical thinking and decision-making are core qualities of a good doctor or dentist. Admissions tutors and the UCAT Consortium include these questions to gauge how well you can evaluate evidence, identify flawed reasoning, and remain objective under time pressure. In practice, doctors often sift through conflicting information and arguments – for instance, weighing the pros and cons of treatments or ethical dilemmas – and then make sound decisions.
For you as an applicant, mastering Strongest Argument questions can boost your Decision Making subtest score, bringing you closer to a high overall UCAT score. Many UK medical and dental schools use UCAT scores to shortlist candidates, so excelling in every section gives you a competitive edge.
Did you know? The Decision Making section typically allows about one minute per question, so efficiency is key. You’ll need to analyse the arguments swiftly and accurately. Don’t worry – with practice, you’ll learn to spot the best argument in seconds, which is exactly what we’ll cover next.
Key Principles: What Makes an Argument “Strong”? 🔑
Not all arguments are created equal. In this question type, strong arguments have certain tell-tale features that set them apart from weaker ones. Let’s break down the hallmarks of a strong vs weak argument in UCAT terms:
Directly addresses the question:
A strong argument stays directly relevant to the subject matter or the main issue in the question. It will clearly relate to both the problem and the proposed solution mentioned in the question. If an option wanders off-topic or only addresses part of the issue, it’s likely not the strongest. If the question is about road safety and speed limits, the strongest argument must focus on the effects of speed limits on road safety, not a side topic.
No unsupported assumptions:
The best argument won’t require you to assume anything beyond the given information. In other words, it doesn’t leap to conclusions without evidence. Weak answers often rely on assumptions or opinions that aren’t backed up – those are red flags to eliminate. For example, stating “the elderly prefer to drive slowly” as a reason is weak if that hasn’t been established – it assumes a fact that hasn't been provided.
No contradictions:
A solid argument won’t contradict itself or the facts in question. Any option containing an internal inconsistency or contradicting the question’s scenario is automatically dubious. The logic must be self-consistent and in line with the given scenario.
Contains key terms from the question:
The strongest answer often echoes the question's key terms or ideas. If the prompt presents a problem and a solution, the correct argument will usually mention both. This is a crucial clue: in the strongest-argument questions, the correct answer mirrors the language or core terms of the question. An argument that focuses only on a tangential aspect or a subset of the issue (e.g., young drivers when the question is about all drivers) is likely not addressing the whole question.
Evidence or logic to back it up:
An argument grounded in evidence, data or a clear logical reason is far more compelling. In many cases, the strongest argument might include a statistic or a factual claim. Even if no actual numbers are given, a strong argument will explain why the point is valid. Conversely, a weaker argument might just make a claim with no reasoning (“just a statement”). Remember, medicine is evidence-based – arguments that hint at evidence or logical justification tend to be stronger.
Definitive, confident language:
Pay attention to your wording. A strong argument often uses definitive terms (“will improve X”, “does cause Y”), showing a firm stance. Weaker arguments might use mitigating words (“might,” “could,” “sometimes”), which leave room for doubt. Being too wishy-washy can indicate that the argument isn’t rock-solid. For example, “X will certainly lead to Y” comes across stronger than “X might possibly lead to Y.” Of course, it still needs to be true and relevant – strong wording alone can’t save a bad argument, but it often accompanies a strong one.
Objective (free of personal bias or emotion):
The UCAT tests logical reasoning, not whether you agree emotionally. The correct argument will be objective and rational. Be careful of options that appeal to emotion or personal belief without logic – for instance, an argument that just says “It’s awful and therefore should never happen!” might be passionate but not logically strong. The official UCAT advice is to “suspend your own beliefs and biases” when evaluating arguments. Focus on logic, not on whether you happen to support the stance. Sometimes the “correct” answer might oppose your personal view, and that’s okay – it’s about the strength of reasoning.
By remembering these principles, you can quickly size up each option. To summarise:
✅ Strong Argument Traits: directly relevant, covers all aspects of the question, fact-based reasoning (maybe even evidence given), no assumptions needed, logically consistent, and uses clear, decisive language.
🚩 Weak Argument Red Flags: veers off-topic or only partially addresses the issue, relies on an assumption or new information not provided, contradicts known facts, provides no real reasoning (just an opinion or a random claim), or is overly hesitant/ambiguous in wording. If you spot any of these, you can likely eliminate that option.
Step-by-Step Strategy to Tackle Strongest Argument Questions 📝
Let’s walk through a reliable approach for answering these questions efficiently, even under the tight UCAT time limit. We’ll then apply it to an example:
1. Read the question stem carefully and objectively.
Identify exactly what is being asked. Is it a question that expects a Yes/No decision (e.g. “Should we do X?”) or a more general problem-solution prompt? Pinpoint the key issue (problem) and the proposed solution or action in the question. For instance, “Should the government implement a minimum speed limit to improve road safety?” – here “, improving road safety” is the problem/goal, and “implementing a minimum speed limit” is the proposed solution. Make a mental note of these terms.
2. Identify the logical terms or keywords in the stem.
These are the crucial words or phrases that any strong answer must address. In our example, the logical terms are “minimum speed limit” and “road safety.” Essentially, what are we trying to decide, and why? The strongest argument must connect to both the “what” (the action) and the “why” (the goal or issue). By clearly identifying these, you set a filter for the answer options. Remember: if an option doesn’t talk about the main action or the main goal, it’s probably not fully addressing the question.
3. Scan and match the options to the question terms.
Now quickly go through the answer choices (A, B, C, D, etc.):
Does the option explicitly mention the key issue and/or the proposed action? If an argument fails to mention either the core problem or the solution, that’s a sign it’s not directly answering the question. You can likely discard it. For example, an option that discusses “reducing traffic jams” when the issue at hand is road safety is off on the wrong tangent – it doesn’t directly tackle road safety (the problem given). Similarly, an argument that talks about driving behaviour but never mentions the minimum speed limit isn’t clearly addressing the proposed solution. The strongest argument usually mirrors the question’s terms – it will connect “minimum speed limit” with “road safety” in our example.
Is it an argument (with reasoning) or just a statement? Ensure the option actually provides a reason. If it simply states an opinion or fact without linking back to the question (“Yes, it’s important to consider this issue.” – that’s not a full argument!), then it’s not a strong contender. The correct choice will give a because or so that – an explanation of why it supports or opposes the proposal.
After this quick scan, you might already be able to narrow it down. Often, only one or two options properly include the key terms of the question. In fact, in the vast majority of strongest argument questions, the correct answer is the one option that clearly mentions both the problem and the solution. This matching technique can save precious time by focusing your attention on the most relevant options straight away.
4. Evaluate the remaining options using logic.
For each remaining plausible argument, apply the quality tests:
Check for assumptions: Does the argument rely on something unproven or not stated? If it only works by assuming additional facts, that weakens it. Toss out any option that sneaks in an unsupported assumption. For example, “Yes – because all elderly drivers are slow” would be suspect because we’d be assuming all elderly drivers drive slowly (not a given fact).
Check for relevance and scope: Is the argument fully addressing the question, or just a narrow part of it? An argument that considers only a subset (e.g., “some drivers”) or a secondary issue misses the bigger picture. Prefer arguments that tackle the question’s main goal head-on.
Look for evidence or clear reasoning: If one argument provides a concrete supporting fact or a logical explanation, it likely outranks one that just makes a claim. For instance, “40% of crashes are caused by slow drivers, a minimum speed limit could prevent these” is bolstering its case with a statistic, a strong sign. In contrast, “People might ignore the new speed limit” is a bit pessimistic but doesn’t directly address whether the policy improves safety (and it lacks evidence – it’s just speculation). Always ask: “Does this option actually support or refute the proposal in a logical way?” If it merely points out a minor issue or opinion, it’s probably not the strongest.
Language check: Consider the tone – is it assertive and decisive about the outcome, or is it hedging? While not the ultimate deciding factor, an argument that confidently states a cause-and-effect (and is factually relevant) usually indicates a well-formed point. Just be cautious: an extreme statement must still be relevant and true; an overly absolute claim that goes beyond the scope can be flawed too. Use this as a secondary check.
Using these criteria, you should identify which argument stands up best to scrutiny. Usually, one option will emerge that has no obvious flaws, directly answers the question, and gives a solid reason – that’s your winner.
5. Make your choice and move on.
Once you’ve found the argument that ticks these boxes, select it and proceed confidently. Trust the logic you’ve applied. It’s important not to second-guess too much or bring in outside knowledge. Remember, all the info needed is in the question and arguments themselves – you are not expected to know any specific factual truth beyond what’s presented. If two arguments seem very close, double-check which one is more directly addressing the actual question asked. One might be generally true, but not answer the question’s demand.
Also, keep an eye on the clock. If you’ve systematically eliminated the weaker ones, you should feel fairly sure about your choice. In the rare case you’re truly stuck, use your best judgment to pick one, flag the question, and return if time permits (there’s no negative marking, so an educated guess is better than leaving it blank). With practice, however, you’ll find that using the above steps often makes the correct answer quite obvious.
Example Walk-Through 🌟
Let’s apply this strategy to a concrete example to see it in action. Consider the question:
Question: “Should we have a minimum speed limit in order to improve road safety? Select the strongest argument from the statements below.”
Answer Options:
A. Yes, a minimum speed limit will ensure there are no slow drivers, reducing rush hour traffic.
B. Yes, 40% of crashes are due to slow drivers. By legalising a minimum speed limit, we can prevent these crashes.
C. No, some drivers ignore the maximum speed limit, so many will do the same with a minimum speed limit.
D. No, a minimum speed limit will encourage people to drive faster than they are comfortable with. This will deter people from driving, especially the elderly.
Now, step by step:
Identify problem & solution: The problem is “improve road safety” and the proposed solution is “have a minimum speed limit.” Any strong argument must connect speed limits to road safety.
Match terms in options:
Option A mentions the minimum speed limit (solution) and discusses rush-hour traffic. It does not explicitly mention road safety at all – it talks about traffic congestion instead. Red flag: it’s addressing a different issue (traffic jams vs safety). It’s likely off-topic. (Maybe it assumes less traffic = safer roads, but that assumption isn’t stated.) Keep it in mind as likely weak.
Option B mentions the minimum speed limit and directly references crashes (road safety issue). Great – it ties the solution to the problem.
Option C discusses speed limits and driver behaviour (ignoring them), but does it mention safety? Not explicitly – it implies an enforcement issue, not directly safety. It’s partially related (to compliance with the law), but it doesn’t clearly address accident rates or safety outcomes. It also focuses on “some drivers” – a subset. We’ll scrutinise it further.
Option D mentions the minimum speed limit and then discusses people driving faster than they're comfortable, which deters drivers (particularly the elderly). This is about people’s feelings and participation, not directly about accidents or safety. It doesn’t mention road safety at all. Likely off the main point. It also introduces the idea of “elderly” – which wasn’t in the question, so that could be an irrelevant detail or assumption.After this scan, Option B is the only one that clearly hits both key terms: it talks about crashes (safety) and the policy (minimum speed limit). So B is our prime candidate so far.
Evaluate remaining options: We’ll double-check B against others:
Option B: “Yes, 40% of crashes are due to slow drivers. By legalising a minimum speed limit, we can prevent these crashes.” – This looks strong. It directly addresses road safety (crash prevention) and uses a statistic (40%) as evidence. It logically connects the solution to the problem: slow drivers cause many crashes (a given fact), a minimum speed would eliminate slow drivers, therefore, crashes would be reduced. There are no obvious assumptions – it presumes the stat is accurate and relevant, which we accept as given information in the option. No contradiction either. This is a fact-based, relevant argument, exactly what we want.
Option A: “Yes, ...ensure no slow drivers, reducing rush hour traffic.” – The issue here: it mentions slow drivers (which could relate to safety) but then shifts to traffic reduction, not safety. It doesn’t actually claim fewer crashes or safer roads. For it to support the goal of improved safety, it assumes that reducing traffic jams will improve safety (i.e. fewer accidents) – but that link isn’t stated. That’s an unsupported assumption. Also, traffic congestion is not the same as road safety; they're distinct benefits. So A, while somewhat related (slow drivers), fails to explicitly address safety and relies on an assumption not given (that traffic = accidents). This makes it a weaker argument than B.
Option C: “No, some drivers ignore the maximum speed limit, hence many will do the same with a minimum speed limit.” – This argument is basically saying the policy might be ignored by some, implying it wouldn’t fully work. However, does that directly argue against improving safety? It suggests that a minimum speed limit might not be effective due to non-compliance. But notice, it never mentions accidents or safety. Also, it generalises the behaviour of “some drivers” – focusing on a subset, which doesn’t conclusively address overall road safety for all drivers. It’s pointing out a limitation (a compliance issue) rather than directly stating why the idea won’t improve safety. We also see a subtle scope issue: the stem is about all drivers, but this focuses on “some drivers” breaking rules. It doesn’t necessarily invalidate the safety argument unless we assume that many people ignoring the law would nullify safety benefits – again, an assumption. So C is weaker than B. It raises a point, but not one that squarely hits the core safety outcome.
Option D: “No, ...people will drive faster than they are comfortable, deterring people (the elderly) from driving.” – This is quite off-base. It doesn’t mention accidents or crashes at all, so it fails the relevance test. Instead, it introduces two assumptions: (1) that people will feel pressured to drive faster than they want (not necessarily true for everyone), and (2) that driving faster than comfortable = more danger or crashes (it implies risk but doesn’t state it). It also veers into a new concern about discouraging elderly drivers, which is not the focus of road safety for the general population, as given in the question. Those are unsupported assumptions and irrelevant issues in context. Even if you personally worry about older drivers, that’s not the question’s point. So D is definitely not the strongest logically.
From this analysis, Option B stands out as the clear strongest argument, as expected. It is direct, evidence-based, and on-topic, whereas the others either ignore the core safety issue, rely on assumptions, or introduce extraneous concerns. In fact, as we initially suspected, B was the only option that explicitly mentioned both the solution (minimum speed limit) and the goal (preventing crashes to improve safety), which was a big indicator of its strength.
So, the correct answer here would be B.
This example illustrates how applying a structured approach makes it much easier to find the strongest argument. By zeroing in on relevant options and then checking for assumptions or flaws, you can quickly eliminate the weaker choices.
Additional Tips and Common Pitfalls 🚧
Before we wrap up, here are some extra tips and warnings to help you ace these questions:
Beware of persuasive writing tricks:
Sometimes an option might sound compelling at first glance (“It’s a serious infringement of freedom!” or “It’s critical for the future!”), But check the logic. Is it actually answering the question? A dramatic statement can be emotionally charged yet logically weak if it doesn’t tackle the specific problem. Always tie it back to the question’s requirement.
Don’t inject your own knowledge or bias:
Stick strictly to the information in the question and the answer options. Even if the topic is something you have opinions or extra knowledge about (e.g. a debate on a public policy or a scientific claim), do not let that sway you. The UCAT isn’t testing your general knowledge here – it’s testing reasoning. Base your judgment only on what’s presented. As mentioned, set aside personal beliefs. For example, if you personally feel strongly that “privacy is paramount” in a question about CCTV cameras, still evaluate whether the argument given is logically strong, not just if you agree with it emotionally.
Use elimination to save time:
Often, it’s faster to eliminate 2-3 flawed arguments than to pinpoint the best one outright. As you practice, you’ll start noticing patterns of flawed arguments, such as:
Arguments that address a different question than asked (e.g. option A addressing traffic when the question was about safety).
Arguments that introduce new problems not mentioned (e.g. option D bringing up “deterring elderly drivers” – a new angle outside the question’s scope).
Arguments that lack a clear “because” part – if you can ask “why?” of an argument and it hasn’t given an answer, it’s probably not strong.
Options that rely on absolutes or extremes incorrectly – e.g. “always”, “never” can be strong if true, but if an argument claims an absolute that’s not supported, it’s flawed. Conversely, if the question is general and an argument only focuses on a minority (“some cases”), it might be too limited.
Eliminating these quickly will usually leave the one that checks out. With practice, this process can become almost automatic – you’ll spot the “red flag” words or content immediately.
Practice critical reading of arguments:
Strongest Argument questions are essentially critical reasoning exercises. To get better, practice by taking any argumentative statement and asking: “Is this relevant? Is it supported? Is anything assumed? Does it actually answer the question posed?” You can use UCAT practice questions or even everyday arguments (an editorial or a debate speech excerpt) to hone this skill. The more you practice spotting assumption vs fact, the quicker you’ll get during the exam.
Keep an eye on wording details:
Examiners can be sneaky with it. Small differences (“most” vs “some”, “can” vs “will”, etc.) can change an argument’s strength. For example, “Most accidents are caused by X” is a stronger claim than “Some accidents might be caused by X.” If the question’s logic requires a strong link, an argument that says “some might…” won’t cut it. So favour options that use wording aligned with the needed strength of the claim. Just remember to ensure the claim is relevant and not exaggerated beyond the scenario given.
Time management:
As with all UCAT questions, timing is crucial. The good news is that evaluating arguments can become very quick with the right approach. By immediately filtering out off-topic answers, you often narrow the field in seconds. Still, if a particular question is taking too long (say, over a minute), use the flag and guessing strategy. But generally, an argument question is less data-heavy than a long puzzle – it’s about thinking clearly rather than calculation. Trust the logical criteria, and you should be able to answer within a minute for most of these. If you’re stuck between two choices, pick the one that adheres more closely to the core question and has fewer “catches” or assumptions.
Learn from practice questions:
Review explanations for any practice questions you get wrong. They often highlight why the correct argument was stronger and why the others were flawed. This will reinforce your understanding of common traps and strengthen your intuition on test day. Over time, you’ll start to recognise recurring flawed argument archetypes, which you can then eliminate at a glance.
By keeping these tips in mind and following a structured approach, you’ll find that Strongest Argument questions become far less intimidating. In fact, many students come to enjoy these questions once they know what to look for, because it’s satisfying to spot the flaw and get to the right answer quickly! 😃
Final Thoughts 💡
Strongest Argument questions are all about logical clarity. They reward you for focusing on relevance and sound reasoning, and for being ruthless in weeding out flawed logic. As an aspiring medic or dentist, developing this skill not only helps you score higher on the UCAT but also builds the mindset of evidence-based decision-making that’s crucial in your future career.
Remember, the strongest argument is not about what sounds most passionate or even what you personally agree with – it’s the one that stands up to logical scrutiny and directly answers the question at hand. By practising identifying key terms, matching them to the answers, and spotting assumptions and irrelevancies, you’ll be able to tackle these questions with confidence.
Stay calm, think methodically, and you’ll soon find yourself quickly zeroing in on the correct argument in each question. Good luck, and happy reasoning!
References:
UCAT Consortium – Decision Making: Evaluating Arguments. Official guidance on recognising assumptions and argument strength (UCAT Tutorial).
