Inquiry and Research: Evaluating Source Reliability and Bias (TEKS.ELA.8.12.H.i)
Help Questions
Texas 8th Grade ELA › Inquiry and Research: Evaluating Source Reliability and Bias (TEKS.ELA.8.12.H.i)
Sources about Texas drought policy and water use: Source A: A 2023 peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning by Dr. Elena Ruiz (PhD in hydrology, University of Texas at Austin). Uses Texas Water Development Board and NOAA datasets; methods and limitations are clearly described; funding from NSF disclosed; no relevant conflicts of interest. Source B: A personal blog post on "HillCountryH2O" by a local homeowner. Attractive charts pulled from news clips; no citations to original data; emotionally charged language; contains affiliate links to home water filters. Source C: A 2015 Texas Water Development Board (state agency) State Water Plan summary. Nonpartisan mandate; methodology publicly posted; relies on older datasets and assumptions from the last planning cycle; regularly updated every five years. Source D: A 2024 press release from Lone Star Pure, a bottled water brand, promoting an "independent" study it commissioned; the study is not peer-reviewed; marketing-heavy tone; clear financial interest in selling bottled water.
Which evaluation best identifies the most credible and reliable source for a research paper on Texas drought policy?
Source B is the most credible because its infographics are engaging and the post has many comments.
Source D is the most credible because a company has the newest sales figures, so its analysis of drought impacts must be objective.
Source A is the most credible: it is peer-reviewed, written by a qualified hydrologist at a Texas university, uses statewide datasets, discloses funding, and explains its methods and limitations.
Source C is the most credible solely because it is from the government, which guarantees it is completely unbiased and up-to-date.
Explanation
Source A demonstrates the strongest credibility: expert authorship, peer review, transparent methods, relevant statewide data, and funding disclosure. Source C is credible but dated; Source B relies on unverified summaries and has affiliate links; Source D has a clear financial conflict and lacks peer review.
Sources about school lunch nutrition: Source A: A 2022 report from a major national newspaper's health desk. Articles are edited; quotes named registered dietitians; links to USDA data and peer-reviewed studies; corrections policy is public. Source B: A 2023 preprint posted on an open research repository by graduate students. Methods and code are shared, but the study is small (45 students at one school) and has not undergone peer review yet. Source C: A 2024 short video by a physical education coach showing lunches at one school; personal observations; no data collection protocol; many likes and shares. Source D: A 2021 "white paper" from an advocacy group that promotes student choice in beverages; funding disclosures note partial support from a soft drink industry group; uses emphatic language and selectively highlights favorable statistics.
Which evaluation correctly identifies the source with problematic bias that would most affect its research value?
Source D shows problematic bias: it is funded in part by the beverage industry, uses emotive language, and cherry-picks data, which undermines its objectivity.
Source A is biased because newspapers always make things up, so it cannot be used in research.
Source B is biased because preprints are illegal and should never be read, even when methods are posted.
Source C is unbiased because the creator is a coach with real-world experience, so no data are needed.
Explanation
Source D has a clear conflict of interest and displays bias indicators (emotive language, selective statistics). Source A follows editorial standards and cites evidence; Source B is unreviewed but not inherently biased; Source C is anecdotal rather than systematically biased.
Sources about a proposed Houston light rail expansion's ridership impacts: Source A: A 2021 article in Urban Transportation Review by Dr. Maya Chen (PhD, licensed professional engineer at Rice University). Peer-reviewed; uses 10 years of METRO data and transparent modeling; discloses a city planning grant and discusses limitations. Source B: A 2023 METRO project brief. Summarizes projected ridership and benefits; partial methodology; promotional tone; aims to build public support. Source C: A 2024 op-ed in a local business weekly by the merchants' association chair. Strong rhetoric about parking and property values; no citations; clear financial stake. Source D: A 2022 report from a nonprofit, Texans for Smart Mobility. Methods described and datasets linked, but funding includes a highway builders' association; headlines are provocative, signaling potential agenda.
Which evaluation best identifies the most reliable source for understanding predicted ridership impacts?
Source C is most reliable because the author owns many stores and knows the area better than researchers.
Source B is most reliable because agency publications are always fully neutral and never promotional.
Source D is most reliable because nonprofits cannot be biased and their reports are longest.
Source A is most reliable: it is peer-reviewed, authored by a transportation modeling expert, uses transparent methods and data, and directly analyzes ridership.
Explanation
Source A combines expert authorship, peer review, relevant data, and transparent methods, making it the strongest source for ridership predictions. Source B may be informative but is promotional; Source C is an opinion with conflicts; Source D is detailed but has a notable funding-related conflict.
Sources about the effects of homework on middle school learning: Source A: A 2020 meta-analysis in the Journal of Educational Research by Dr. Priya Nair and Dr. Lucas Gomez. Peer-reviewed; synthesizes 78 studies; preregistered protocol; PRISMA flow diagram; limitations and funding (university grant) disclosed. Source B: A 2024 company blog post by HomeworkFree LLC promoting a no-homework app. Claims to analyze millions of user interactions; methods are proprietary; the company profits if schools adopt its approach. Source C: A 2023 popular podcast episode featuring teacher anecdotes. Engaging stories; no systematic data; no sources listed. Source D: A collaboratively edited encyclopedia article on "Homework." Summarizes many sources and links out; open to edits by anyone; talk page shows disputes over sections.
Which evaluation best identifies the highest-credibility source for a research paper on homework's effects?
Source D is most credible because anyone can edit it at any time, so it's always correct.
Source A is most credible: a peer-reviewed meta-analysis by qualified researchers with transparent methods, disclosures, and stated limitations.
Source C is most credible because it's popular and easy to understand.
Source B is most credible because the company has lots of user data, so there cannot be any bias.
Explanation
Source A applies rigorous, transparent methods across many studies and is peer-reviewed, making it the strongest for academic research. Source B has a financial conflict and opaque methods; Source C is anecdotal; Source D is a useful starting point but not consistently reliable due to open editing.
You are researching how Texas should plan for drought. Consider these sources: Source 1: A 2023 peer-reviewed study by Dr. Elena Ruiz, a professor of hydrology at Texas A&M University, published in a respected engineering journal. It analyzes 20 years of Texas rainfall, reservoir, and municipal use data; methods and datasets are fully shared; funding is from a federal science agency; authors disclose no conflicts; tone is balanced and limitations are noted. Source 2: A 2024 article on a regional news website summarizing recent dry conditions. It cites "experts say" without naming them, links to no original data, includes stock images, and focuses on dramatic anecdotes; no author credentials or editorial policy are provided. Source 3: A 2024 white paper from WaterNow Texas, an industry group funded by a bottled water consortium. It argues new restrictions are "job-killing," presents statistics without citations, and does not disclose methodology; the group's donors would benefit from looser water rules. Source 4: A personal blog by an anonymous Hill Country homesteader describing how their well ran dry. It includes photos and personal stories but no data sources or author qualifications.
Which statement best identifies the most credible and reliable source for factual evidence on statewide drought strategies?
Source 1 is the most credible because it is peer-reviewed, authored by a hydrology professor, uses transparent methods and a long-term dataset, and discloses funding with no conflicts.
Source 2 is the most credible because it is recent, widely shared, and includes quotes from several unnamed experts.
Source 3 is the most credible since it represents industry views and therefore knows the issues best, even though it is funded by the bottled water consortium.
Source 4 is the most credible because personal experience is more trustworthy than statistics and peer review.
Explanation
Source 1 shows strong credibility: qualified author, peer-reviewed venue, transparent data/methods, clear funding disclosure, and balanced tone. The others lack author expertise, rely on anecdotes, or have undisclosed/obvious conflicts and missing methods.
You are evaluating evidence about school nutrition policies. Consider these sources: Source 1: A 2021 U.S. government report on school meal standards authored by PhD nutritionists in a policy office. It includes a sampling plan, data tables, and an external technical review statement; datasets are archived; authors list no conflicts. Source 2: A 2023 op-ed on the website of SugarSmart Now, an advocacy group. Written by the group's campaign director, it uses charged language, highlights studies that support the group's stance, ignores counterevidence, and the donor list includes companies with a financial interest in related products. Source 3: A 2022 peer-reviewed meta-analysis in a public health journal by university researchers. The protocol was preregistered; inclusion criteria and statistical methods are transparent; funding is from an independent foundation; conflicts are declared as none. Source 4: A 2023 national newspaper explainer with balanced quotes from multiple experts and critics, but it summarizes others' research and provides no technical appendix.
Which source shows problematic bias that would most affect its value as evidence in a research paper?
Source 1, because government documents are never reliable and should be rejected on that basis alone.
Source 2, because it is authored by an advocate, funded by interested donors, uses selective evidence, and employs emotive language.
Source 3, because peer review hides bias and therefore makes the article less trustworthy than opinion pieces.
Source 4, because news articles include multiple perspectives and that makes them inherently biased.
Explanation
Source 2 demonstrates clear bias indicators: advocacy authorship, funding with potential conflicts, selective evidence, and charged language. The government report and peer-reviewed meta-analysis show stronger methodological and editorial safeguards; the news explainer reports others' findings without the same conflict signals.
You are researching current emission levels near the Houston Ship Channel in Texas. Consider these sources: Source 1: A 2024 university preprint by epidemiologists at a Texas medical school. Authors are credentialed and disclose no conflicts, but the study is not yet peer-reviewed and uses a small local cohort; it focuses on health outcomes more than current emission measurements and notes significant limitations. Source 2: A local TV news segment featuring short interviews with residents and a company spokesperson. It offers contrasting quotes but no linked data or methodology and does not identify experts' credentials. Source 3: A 2023 report by a consulting firm hired by a petrochemical company operating on the channel. It concludes risks are minimal; methods are partly proprietary; funding comes from the client; conflict of interest is disclosed briefly. Source 4: A 2023 ambient air monitoring report from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). It provides QA/QC procedures, full methodology, and downloadable raw datasets from multiple monitors; authors are staff scientists with relevant degrees; limitations are transparently discussed.
Which source is the most credible and reliable for accurate, current emission levels near the Houston Ship Channel?
Source 1, because the university logo and personal interviews guarantee accuracy, even without peer review or complete data.
Source 2, because eyewitness accounts and a company statement are more reliable than datasets and methods.
Source 3, because the consultants are professionals hired by the company and proprietary methods are a sign of expertise.
Source 4, because it is an official monitoring report with transparent methods, QA/QC, raw data, qualified authors, and clear limitations.
Explanation
Source 4 provides the strongest basis for current emission levels: transparent monitoring methods, quality controls, public datasets, and qualified authors. The preprint is not peer-reviewed and is limited; the TV segment lacks data; the consulting report has a significant conflict and opaque methods.
You are gathering sources on how screen time affects sleep. Consider these sources: Source 1: A 2025 podcast episode hosted by a tech entrepreneur. It features personal anecdotes and interviews with the host's employees; the sponsor sells blue-light glasses; no citations or methods are provided. Source 2: A 2022 systematic review in a sleep medicine journal by researchers from two universities. The protocol was preregistered; inclusion criteria and meta-analytic methods are detailed; the article is peer-reviewed; funding is from a national health agency; conflicts are disclosed as none. Source 3: A 2025 infographic from a wellness app. It is visually polished and recent, claims "scientists agree," cites broken or vague links, and relies on the app's user data without explaining how it was collected or analyzed. Source 4: A 2025 wiki-style encyclopedia entry that is extensively cited and appears neutral but can be edited by anyone; content changes frequently and is not peer-reviewed.
Which statement best evaluates the credibility of the sources for a research paper?
Source 1 is the most credible because it is popular and recent, and the host has personal experience.
Source 4 is the most credible because it is crowdsourced and frequently updated by many contributors.
Source 2 provides the strongest credible evidence because it is a peer-reviewed systematic review with transparent methods and no apparent conflicts.
Source 3 is the most reliable because its design is professional and it draws on a large user base.
Explanation
A peer-reviewed systematic review with preregistration, clear methods, and disclosed funding/conflicts (Source 2) is the most credible. The podcast and infographic lack methodological transparency and show potential conflicts; the crowdsourced entry can be a starting point but is not as authoritative as peer-reviewed research.