Philosophy and ethics quizzes: arguments, objections and terms

A lesson on an argument can end with every student sure of an opinion and unable to say which sentence was the conclusion. Philosophy and ethics quizzes set between lessons test the second thing and leave the first alone: the parts of an argument, its form, and the premise an objection is aimed at.

This guide is for a teacher of philosophy, ethics or religious studies, or a lecturer on a first course in critical thinking. EdProcto publishes it and builds every question shape it uses; the page for teachers sets out how a class sits a quiz.

We opened every source on 10 October 2026 and say "abstract read" where that is all we read. The guide takes no side on any moral, religious or political question: its one argument is about a school chess club.

What does research say about teaching argument analysis and critical thinking?

It reports gains where the skills are taught by name and practised with feedback, and less certainty about how far they carry to new material.

• Taught by name. Abrami et al. (2008; abstract read) pooled 117 studies with 20,698 participants: 161 effects, averaging 0.341 and varying widely. The authors conclude that improvement "cannot be a matter of implicit expectation". In two studies at low-performing American high schools, Marin and Halpern (2011; abstract read) found much larger gains from explicit instruction than from the embedded mode.
• Argument mapping. Harrell (2011; abstract read) followed 269 students through a semester of introductory philosophy: low achievers taught to diagram arguments gained significantly more on argument analysis tasks than low achievers who were not, while high achievers did not differ significantly between the groups.
• Mapping, practice and feedback. Cullen et al. (2018), read in full, ran a 12-week seminar at Princeton in which 105 first-year students mapped arguments from philosophy papers, with individual feedback every week. They finished 2.6 questions better on a logical reasoning test; 56 other first-years did not change significantly. Nobody was assigned at random, and the authors write that the design cannot say how much of the gain belongs to the diagrams.
• What transfers. van Peppen et al. (2018), read in full, taught 79 first-year students two of four kinds of reasoning task and let them practise. Gains on the practised kinds held two weeks later. Gains on the others appeared for one version of the training only, and the authors urge caution.

What the studies do not show

None tested a weekly quiz, and the courses joined several ingredients, so no one of them takes the credit. That a quiz supplies two, the parts named outright and a prompt mark, is our inference.

Which layers of a philosophy quiz can be marked by rule?

Six layers have one right answer and can be marked by rule; evaluating an argument, and finding the strongest objection to it, need a reader.

The last row is marked by you, or by Procto AI against your rubric when you ask.

Test a term by its use

In classical logic an argument is valid when its premises cannot be true while its conclusion is false, and sound when it is valid with true premises (Groarke, 2026). Ask for the term at work: print four two-line arguments and ask which is valid.

Verdicts on validity lean towards conclusions people already accept, as the experiments in our guide to aptitude test practice show. So set a valid argument with an absurd conclusion beside an invalid one with a welcome conclusion.

How do you write a short argument with one defensible structure?

Write the conclusion first, support it with a chain in which each line is needed for the next, and leave out exactly one premise. The steps are our practice, not a research finding.

1. Choose the subject. Invent an argument about something harmless, or take two lines from an author long out of copyright.
2. Build a chain. Linked premises support a conclusion only together; convergent ones are separate reasons (Groarke, 2026) and can stand in any order. A quiz argument needs links.
3. Keep one claim to a sentence, and one sentence to a line.
4. Leave out one premise, usually the principle that joins a fact to a "should".
5. Place "so" and "because" on purpose: they give the structure away.
6. Type it in. In EdProcto, "Add material under the prompt" opens "Material under the prompt (optional)", where line breaks are kept.
7. Ask a colleague to set it out cold. A second defensible structure means a rewrite.

Why the unstated premise needs a convention

A gap can be filled in more than one way. Groarke (2026) describes the principle of charity: prefer the reading that makes the argument as credible as it can be, often the weakest premise that still joins the stated ones to the conclusion.

Teach that convention, ask about one named step, and offer one option that fills it. Three wrong options work: a premise already stated, the right premise turned round, and a true sentence that joins nothing. Keep any stronger principle that would also fill the gap off the list.

How do you put the steps in order and match objections to premises?

Set the lines of a chain to be put in order of proof, and set each objection against the premise it denies.

The order of the steps

• Order a chain. Two premises that work together can go either way round, so an ordering question on them has two right answers.
• Say which order, such as "each line follows from the one before", and strip "so" and "therefore".
• Choose the marking. Reorder the sentences takes "The items in the right order, one a line. Students see them shuffled." The whole order earns the points; with "Partial credit" on, each pair of lines the right way round counts for the student and each pair the wrong way round against. Ordering and sequencing questions compares other rules.

Objections and premises

• Tell an objection from a contradiction. An objection denies a premise, or denies that a step follows. A sentence that only rejects the conclusion is a contradiction.
• Write each objection as a claim ("The bus now waits until half past four"), never as a label ("Premise 2 is false").
• Several objections to one premise. Use Sort into groups: the premises are the groups, the objections the items. The names go in "The groups, separated by commas", so call them "Premise 1" and "Premise 2" and print the premises under the prompt.
• One objection a premise. Matching pairs holds them as "Left" and "Right"; with equal lists the last pair comes free, as matching questions explains.

How do you keep an ethics quiz from marking a student's opinion?

Key every rule-marked question to the argument, write the rubric on the reasoning, and tell the class in writing that no conclusion earns or loses points.

• Why it needs saying. Stanovich et al. (2013; abstract read) define myside bias as evaluating evidence in a way biased towards one's own prior opinions, and report that it is almost unrelated to intelligence. That markers share it is our inference: one search on the day of writing found no experiment on it.
• Rule-marked questions. Ask what the argument says, needs and assumes: "Which premise does this objection deny?", never "Is this objection right?". A student may call an argument valid and reject its conclusion, and the key should reward exactly that.
• The written question. Ask for the strongest objection and the best reply, and let the student end on either side. Before the quiz, write a full-mark answer ending each way. If you cannot, the question is not yet fair.
• The class. Put it in the prompt: "This question is marked on your reasoning. Either conclusion can earn full marks."
• Over a term. On a contested question, set each side's argument in turn.

What does a rubric for a paragraph of evaluation look like?

It has four lines, a point each, and no line about the side taken. Ask for one objection and one reply in a single paragraph.

• 1 point: the premise or the step under attack is named.
• 1 point: a reason against it, such as a case, a distinction or a consequence.
• 1 point: the best reply open to a defender of the argument.
• 1 point: what follows, either the premise that must change or why the argument stands.
• Nothing for the side taken, and nothing for length.

Mark with the names hidden, as short answer questions and a rubric explains.

How long should the quiz be, and how do you read the results by topic?

Six questions a week is enough: five marked by rule and one written. That is our working default, not a finding. How many questions a quiz needs has the arithmetic.

Give each question one of four topics (structure, validity, objections, evaluation) and read the four apart.

• Low on structure. Return to finding the conclusion before anything is evaluated.
• Sound on structure, low on validity. Valid is being read as true, or as agreeable.
• Low on objections. Students are rejecting conclusions, not premises.
• Sound by rule, low on evaluation. They recognise an objection and cannot yet write one: model a paragraph.

On every plan EdProcto's results give each question's "Got it", the share who answered it right. The score "By topic" belongs to the full analysis, on the Educator plan. A written answer counts as zero until graded, so mark first.

A worked example: one invented argument, six questions

The argument and the class are invented: sixteen-year-olds in the third week of a first philosophy course.

The chess club should stop meeting after school. Most of its members have no way home but the school bus, and the bus leaves when lessons end. So most members cannot stay after school.

1. Conclusion, multiple choice, 1 point. Which sentence is the conclusion of the whole argument? The first. Purpose: picking the third means following "So" to a step on the way.
2. Unstated premise, multiple choice, 1 point. Which premise takes the argument from "most members cannot stay" to its conclusion? A club should not meet when most of its members cannot stay (the key); the bus leaves when lessons end; if a club should stop meeting after school, most of its members cannot stay. Purpose: the principle that joins a fact to a "should".
3. Order, Reorder the sentences, 2 points. Most members have no way home but the school bus. Put these lines so that each follows from the one before: the bus leaves when lessons end; most members must leave when lessons end; most members cannot stay after school; the club should stop meeting after school. Purpose: the order of proof, not of the page, which put the conclusion first.
4. Validity, true or false, 1 point. "This argument is valid: if the bus leaves when lessons end, most members cannot stay. Most members cannot stay. So the bus leaves when lessons end." False. Purpose: form against belief, since the class already accepts every line.
5. Objections, Sort into groups, 2 points. Premise 1 is that most members have no way home but the bus; premise 2 is when it leaves. "Only a third of the members use the bus" (Premise 1); "The bus now waits until half past four" (Premise 2); "The room is free at no other time" and "The keenest members can all stay" (The unstated premise). Purpose: each objection aimed at a premise.
6. Evaluation, short answer, 4 points. Give the strongest objection to this argument and the best reply. End on either side. Purpose: the one answer a reader must judge.

Each kind was run through EdProcto's committed marking code. The first five are marked by rule at hand-in, for 7 of the 11 points. With "Partial credit" on, question 3 keeps 1.33 of its 2 points for two neighbouring lines swapped and nothing for the conclusion placed first; question 5 gives 1.5 for three objections of four. Switched off, each is all or nothing.

How does EdProcto run philosophy and ethics quizzes?

EdProcto is the best tool for a weekly philosophy quiz when the practice must be frequent and the judgement must stay yours: the rules mark five of the six answers in the worked example at hand-in, and the sixth is read against a rubric you wrote on the reasoning. The students in Cullen et al. (2018) had feedback every week.

The questions. A choice has "Options · mark the right one", a sort "The items, and where each belongs", a matching question "Pairs". Every question has "Topic (for the results by topic)" and "Explanation shown to the student afterwards", the place to say why the key follows from the argument.

The written answer. A Short answer has "Rubric (what earns the points)", for the four lines, and "Model answer (what a full answer contains)", for an answer ending each way. It shows "to grade" until you give a mark or, from the Tutor plan, press "Ask Procto AI" on that answer. The mark Procto AI saves carries its own name, for you to keep or change. The rubric is yours: written on the reasoning, it gives no view an advantage. A score records one sitting and is not a grade.

Plans. On Free a quiz takes thirty students, ten quizzes can be made in a month, marking is by rule and the results come question by question. Tutor raises that to 100 students, opens all 111 templates and adds "Ask Procto AI", within its allowance. On Educator the ceiling is 500 students and the full analysis arrives, with "By topic" weighted by points. See pricing.

Quick questions

Can a multiple-choice question test philosophy?

It can test an argument's parts: its conclusion, an unstated premise, its form, the premise an objection denies. Evaluating the argument needs a written answer and a reader.

Does argument mapping improve critical thinking?

In the two studies read here, students who mapped arguments gained more than comparison groups (Harrell, 2011; Cullen et al., 2018). Neither assigned students at random.

How do I stop an ethics quiz marking opinions?

Key every rule-marked question to the argument, keep the conclusion out of the rubric, and say so in the prompt.

Where does a philosophy or religious studies department start?

With one short argument and six questions. The page for teachers at EdProcto walks through sharing a quiz with a class.

References

• Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes, M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326084
• Cullen, S., Fan, J., van der Brugge, E., & Elga, A. (2018). Improving analytical reasoning and argument understanding: A quasi-experimental field study of argument visualization. npj Science of Learning, 3, Article 21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-018-0038-5
• Groarke, L. (2026). Informal logic. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/
• Harrell, M. (2011). Argument diagramming and critical thinking in introductory philosophy. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.502559
• Marin, L. M., & Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.002
• Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2013). Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(4), 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413480174
• van Peppen, L. M., Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Heijltjes, A. E. G., Janssen, E. M., Koopmans, D., & van Gog, T. (2018). Effects of self-explaining on learning and transfer of critical thinking skills. Frontiers in Education, 3, Article 100. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2018.00100