<P> In designing a test for the aforementioned model, it is necessary to determine the quality of an argument, i.e., whether it is viewed as strong or weak . If the argument is not seen as strong, then the results of persuasion will be inconsistent . A strong argument is defined by Petty and Cacioppo as "one containing arguments such that when subjects are instructed to think about the message, the thoughts they generate are fundamentally favorable ." An argument that is universally viewed as weak will elicit unfavorable results, especially if the subject considers it under high elaboration, thus being the central route . Test arguments must be rated by ease of understanding, complexity and familiarity . To study either route of the elaboration likelihood model, the arguments must be designed for consistent results . Also, when assessing persuasion of an argument, the influence of peripheral cues needs to be taken into consideration as cues can influence attitude even in the absence of argument processing . The extent or direction of message processing also needs to be taken into consideration when assessing persuasion, as variables can influence or bias thought by enabling or inhibiting the generation of a particular kind of thought in regard to the argument . "While the ELM theory continues to be widely cited and taught as one of the major cornerstones of persuasion, questions are raised concerning its relevance and validity in 21st century communication contexts ." </P> <P> Some researchers have been criticized for misinterpreting the ELM . One such instance is Kruglanski and Thompson, who write that the processing of central or peripheral routes is determined by the type of information that affects message persuasion . For example, message variables are only influential when the central route is used and information like source variables is only influential when the peripheral route is used . In fact, the ELM does not make statements about types of information being related to routes . Rather, the key to the ELM is how any type of information will be used depending on central or peripheral routes, regardless of what that information is . For example, the central route may permit source variables to influence preference for certain language usage in the message (e.g. "beautiful") or validate a related product (e.g. cosmetics), while the peripheral route may only lead individuals to associate the "goodness" of source variables with the message . Theoretically, all of these could occur simultaneously . Thus, the distinction between central and peripheral routes is not the type of information being processed as those types can be applied to both routes, but rather how that information is processed and ultimately whether processing information in one way or the other will result in different attitudes . </P> <P> A second instance of misinterpretation is that processing of the central route solely involves thinking about the message content and not thoughts about the issue . Petty and Cacioppo (1981) stated "If the issue is very important to the person, but the person doesn't understand the arguments being presented in the message, or if no arguments are actually presented, then elaboration of arguments cannot occur....Nevertheless, the person may still be able to think about the issue ." Therefore, issue - relevant thinking is still a part of the central route and is necessary for one to think about the message content . </P> <P> Lastly, a third instance of misinterpretation by Kruglanski and Thompson is the disregard for the quantitative dimension presented by the ELM and more focus on the qualitative dimension . This quantitative dimension is the peripheral route involves low - elaboration persuasion that is quantitatively different from the central route that involves high elaboration . With this difference the ELM also explains that low - elaboration persuasion processes are qualitatively different as well . It is seen as incorrect if the ELM focuses on a quantitative explanation over a qualitative one; however one of the ELM's key points is that elaboration can range from high to low which is not incorrect as data from experiments conducted by Petty (1997) as well as Petty and Wegener (1999) suggest that persuasion findings can be explained by a quantitative dimension without ever needing a qualitative one . </P>

According to the elaboration likelihood model which of the following is true