Inquiry and Research: Evaluating Source Reliability, Credibility, and Bias (TEKS.ELA.7.12.H.i)
Help Questions
Texas 7th Grade ELA › Inquiry and Research: Evaluating Source Reliability, Credibility, and Bias (TEKS.ELA.7.12.H.i)
Topic: Energy drinks and teens. Source 1: A May 2025 press release from a national beverage trade association; highlights only studies showing safety; funded by member companies; promotional tone. Source 2: A 2023 government health agency page authored by registered dietitians; includes multiple citations and cautions for adolescents. Source 3: A 2024 university student opinion piece in a campus newspaper; strong claims but no citations. Source 4: A 2025 preprint study from an independent lab; not peer-reviewed yet; funding statement shows support from a large energy drink company; detailed data provided.
Which source shows clear bias that would most affect its usefulness for objective research?
Source 2, because government sites can never be trusted.
Source 4, because preprints are always false.
Source 3, because opinions from students are biased by definition.
Source 1, because it is an industry trade association press release designed to promote member companies and uses selective evidence.
Explanation
Source 1 has an inherent conflict of interest and a promotional purpose, indicating strong bias. Source 2 cites evidence and is produced by a public health agency. Source 3 is opinion but less clearly conflicted by financial interests. Source 4 lacks peer review and has funding concerns, but the question asks for clear bias, which fits the trade association release best.
You are researching Texas water use and conservation. Consider these sources:
- Source A: A 2023 peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Water Resources by a hydrologist at The University of Texas at Austin. The study explains methods, provides data tables, and cites dozens of scholarly sources. No ads.
- Source B: A 2024 industry blog post on a sprinkler equipment company's website. It is labeled 'sponsored content,' highlights product benefits, and includes affiliate links. Few citations.
- Source C: A 2022 Texas Water Development Board web summary with statewide statistics and links to detailed datasets. It is brief and written for the public.
- Source D: A 2025 social media thread by a local influencer describing personal experiences with lawn watering and neighborhood rules. No sources are cited.
Which source is the most credible and reliable for scientific facts about Texas water use?
Source A, because it is peer-reviewed, authored by a subject expert, and includes methods and citations.
Source B, because it looks professional and is very recent.
Source D, because it went viral and has many comments agreeing with it.
Source C, because government summaries are always the best even if they do not explain methods or cite studies.
Explanation
Source A is most credible: it is peer-reviewed, written by a hydrologist, and shows methods and citations. Source B has a commercial conflict of interest, Source D relies on anecdotes and popularity, and Source C is useful but a brief summary without methodological detail.
You are evaluating sources on healthy sleep habits:
- Source A: A 2022 article in a respected medical journal, authored by university sleep researchers. It reports a controlled study and cites prior research.
- Source B: A 2024 sponsored article on a mattress company's site. It recommends specific products, uses testimonials, and includes 'buy now' links.
- Source C: A 2025 popular podcast episode featuring a celebrity physician discussing sleep tips, with no linked sources.
- Source D: A 2021 public health fact sheet from a national health agency, summarizing evidence-based sleep guidelines.
Which source shows clear bias that would most affect its usefulness for research?
Source A, because peer review introduces bias.
Source B, because it is sponsored content that promotes the company's products.
Source C, because it is popular and widely shared.
Source D, because it is from a government agency and is a few years old.
Explanation
Source B has a direct commercial interest and promotional purpose, creating clear bias. Source A is peer-reviewed research, Source C may lack citations but popularity is not the same as bias, and Source D is evidence-based despite being slightly older.
You are researching coastal erosion along the Texas Gulf Coast:
- Source A: A 2021 peer-reviewed study in Coastal Management by Texas A&M coastal geologists. It details methods, includes maps and data, and cites multiple studies.
- Source B: A 2023 local news report summarizing recent state agency measurements, with quotes from a geologist and a county official.
- Source C: A 2022 county tourism brochure highlighting beach attractions. It downplays erosion and focuses on visitor activities. No citations.
- Source D: A 2024 environmental advocacy group's campaign page with dramatic photos, urgent language, donation buttons, and selective statistics without context.
Which source is most likely to have strong bias that limits its usefulness for a balanced research paper?
Source A, because academic journals are always biased toward one viewpoint.
Source B, because local news cannot use expert sources.
Source C, because tourism materials always tell the full scientific story.
Source D, because advocacy campaigns often use persuasive language and selective evidence to support a cause.
Explanation
Source D has an explicit advocacy purpose, persuasive language, and selective evidence, indicating strong bias. Source A is peer-reviewed research, Source B provides reported summaries with expert quotes, and Source C is promotional but typically less extreme than an active campaign page.
You are preparing a research paper on current school lunch nutrition guidelines:
- Source A: A 2010 government brochure for the general public. It is easy to read but does not include references and may be outdated.
- Source B: A crowd-edited encyclopedia page updated last week. It has many links but can be changed by anyone.
- Source C: A 2023 peer-reviewed systematic review in a nutrition policy journal by registered dietitian researchers at a state university. It explains methods, evaluates multiple studies, and discloses funding.
- Source D: A 2024 lifestyle news article with a catchy headline summarizing one small study without linking the original research.
Which source is the most credible and reliable for a research paper on current school lunch nutrition guidelines?
Source A, because government brochures are always the most reliable even if they are old and lack citations.
Source B, because it is popular and was updated recently by many people.
Source C, because it is a recent peer-reviewed systematic review by experts with clear methods and disclosures.
Source D, because it is recent and easy to read even without sources.
Explanation
Source C is the strongest: a recent, peer-reviewed systematic review by qualified experts with transparent methods and disclosures. Source A is outdated and lacks citations, Source B's open editing reduces reliability, and Source D is a nonscholarly summary without sources.
You are researching the effectiveness of city recycling programs. Consider these sources: Source 1: A 2023 peer-reviewed article by Dr. Maya Chen, an environmental policy professor, published in an academic journal. It explains methods, analyzes data from multiple cities, and includes a long reference list. Source 2: A January 2024 post on a city-lifestyle blog written by a freelance writer. It has catchy headlines, affiliate links, and few citations. Source 3: A 2022 brochure from a city nonprofit coalition that advocates for recycling and requests donations. It highlights success stories but does not describe data collection. Source 4: A social media infographic posted two weeks ago by a lifestyle account. It has no listed author credentials or sources.
Which source is the most credible and reliable for a research paper on how effective city recycling programs are?
Source 2 is most credible because it was widely shared online and focuses on city life.
Source 4 is most credible because it is the most recent post.
Source 1 is most credible because it is a peer-reviewed study by a subject expert with clear methods and citations.
Source 3 is most credible because it strongly supports recycling and asks for donations to help.
Explanation
Source 1 combines author expertise, peer review, clear methods, and ample citations. The others show bias indicators, lack rigorous sourcing, or rely on recency/popularity rather than credibility.
You are studying Texas drought policy. Consider these sources: Source 1: A 2023 statewide water report from the Texas state water agency, written by hydrologists. It explains data sources, methods, and includes tables and references. Source 2: A 2024 opinion column by the director of a ranchers association arguing against groundwater limits. It uses emotional language, anecdotes, and has minimal citations. Source 3: A 2021 university extension fact sheet from a Texas university, reviewed by faculty and citing multiple academic studies. Source 4: A 2024 popular podcast episode discussing drought with a neighbor of the host. There is no transcript or linked sources.
Which source shows clear bias that would most affect its usefulness for objective research on Texas drought policy?
Source 2, because it advocates for a specific group's interests and relies on emotional appeals with few citations.
Source 1, because government reports always contain errors and cannot be trusted.
Source 4, because podcasts are all biased and never useful.
Source 3, because being from a university makes it biased toward scientists.
Explanation
Source 2 is an advocacy piece representing a stakeholder group with a clear position and limited evidence, signaling bias. Sources 1 and 3 follow stronger publication standards and include data and citations.
You are gathering statistics on teen vaping. Consider these sources: Source 1: A 2024 manuscript posted on a preprint site by two graduate students. It reports a small survey and has not been peer-reviewed. Source 2: A 2023 personal blog post by a parent describing experiences, with no references. Source 3: A 2022 white paper from a vaping product manufacturer highlighting positive outcomes, funded by the company. Source 4: A 2024 web page from a national public health agency summarizing recent peer-reviewed studies, with data tables and citations.
Which source is the most credible for accurate health statistics on teen vaping?
Source 3, because the company makes the products and knows them best.
Source 2, because it has many comments agreeing with the author.
Source 1, because it is the newest research even though it has not been peer-reviewed.
Source 4, because it comes from a national public health agency with up-to-date data and citations.
Explanation
Source 4 is produced by a reputable public health institution and cites peer-reviewed research. The others have conflicts of interest, lack peer review, or rely on anecdote and popularity.
You are evaluating sources about a proposed highway expansion in Texas. Consider these sources: Source 1: A 2024 neighborhood group's petition page with dramatic photos and urgent language. It collects emails and donations and does not explain methods. Source 2: A 2022 environmental assessment from the state transportation department detailing traffic models, noise studies, maps, and consultant reports, with references. Source 3: A 2023 article from a major Texas newspaper that quotes multiple stakeholders and links to official documents; it has a public corrections policy. Source 4: A 2023 sponsored article on a local business site written by a construction firm that supports the project and is labeled "paid content."
For objective facts about expected traffic impacts, which source is the most credible and reliable?
Source 1, because community passion shows the information is important.
Source 2, because it is an official environmental assessment with detailed methods, data, and references.
Source 3, because newspapers are always unbiased and never make mistakes.
Source 4, because it promises job growth and comes from industry experts.
Explanation
Source 2 is a primary government document with documented methods and data. The petition and sponsored content show clear bias, and the news article, while useful, summarizes rather than provides the full methodology and data.