Strongest-argument questions feel subjective, which is exactly why they trip people up. They aren't. There's one rule that removes the guesswork, and once it's automatic these become some of the most reliable marks in Decision Making.
The format
You're given a yes/no question — usually a 'Should we do X to fix Y?' — and four arguments, some arguing yes and some no. Your job is to pick the single strongest one. Importantly, a strong argument is not the one you personally agree with; it's the one that reasons best, whichever side it takes.
The foolproof rule: address both the problem AND the solution
A strong argument must connect the proposed solution to the actual problem, and explain how or why it does. Break the stem into two halves — the solution (X) and the reason or problem (Y) — then ask of each option: does it explain why X actually does, or doesn't, affect Y? An argument that only mentions one half, or wanders off to a side issue, is weak no matter how confident it sounds.
Relevance comes first, everything else is a tie-breaker
Apply the rule ruthlessly: any option that fails to link solution and problem is out immediately, even if it's detailed, factual and well written. Only when two or more options are genuinely relevant do you reach for tie-breakers — specificity over vagueness, evidence over bare opinion, and whether the option offers a concrete mechanism rather than a slogan.
Common weak-argument traps
Watch for four traps. The off-topic argument that is true but addresses a different issue. The unsupported assertion that states an opinion with no reasoning. The argument that just restates the stem ('yes, because more people could do X') without explaining the effect. And the extreme or absolute claim that overreaches — sweeping 'always' or 'no one would ever' statements rarely hold up.
Worked logic
Take: 'Should under-fives be banned from phone apps because they can become addicted?' A 'No, children enjoy the bright colours' option ignores the addiction problem entirely — out. 'No, some apps are educational' raises a separate benefit, not the addiction issue — out. A 'Yes' option explaining that heavy early screen use is linked to a concrete harm directly connects the ban to the stated problem, so it's the strongest.
A second pass through the rule
Try: 'Should vaccination be compulsory to reduce outbreaks?' 'No, vaccines can have side effects' is a vague, unlinked worry — out. The strongest 'No' explains a mechanism: outbreaks can still occur even with high coverage because vaccines aren't fully effective, so the policy may not deliver. It addresses both the solution and the problem with a reason, which is the whole test.
Make the rule subconscious
Run the same checklist on every question until it's reflexive: name the solution, name the problem, eliminate anything that fails to link them, then tie-break on quality. Drill it and these questions stop feeling like opinion and start feeling like the near-guaranteed marks they should be.