Final answer:
The statement about Cleveland and Taft being above-average presidents is inherently opinion-based as it incorporates subjective judgment. Presidential effectiveness is a complex topic that combines factual achievement with personal perspective and values.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement 'Both Grover Cleveland and William Howard Taft rank as above-average presidents' reflects a matter of opinion rather than an incontrovertible fact. The presidency includes both quantitative achievements and qualitative elements that are subject to interpretation and personal values. While historical records show that both Cleveland and Taft had significant achievements in office, their effectiveness and legacy as presidents can be debated, and opinions on their presidencies vary among scholars and the public.
For instance, William Howard Taft is known for his substantial experience in political appointments and diplomatic posts before becoming president in 1908 and was seen, at least initially, as a continuation of Theodore Roosevelt's policies. Grover Cleveland, on his part, is noted for winning the popular vote in his second election but losing the presidency due to not securing the Electoral College. These events are part of their historical record, but whether they contribute to being considered 'above-average' is subjective.