English Language Arts: Source Credibility (TEKS.ELA.9-12.12.H.i)
Help Questions
Texas High School ELA › English Language Arts: Source Credibility (TEKS.ELA.9-12.12.H.i)
Source A: Peer-reviewed hydrology article by Dr. Elena Ruiz (University of Texas research hydrogeologist) in a top-tier hydrology journal published by an academic society. Uses multi-year aquifer monitoring data, clearly describes sampling and modeling, shares code and data in a public repository, reports limitations, and has independent funding (federal grant) with no industry ties disclosed. Source B: Policy report from the Lone Star Water Initiative, a regional think tank funded by a consortium of bottled-water and real estate firms. Methods are described vaguely, key datasets are proprietary, and citations focus on favorable case studies while omitting conflicting research. Advisory board includes executives from funder companies; conflicts disclosed in fine print. Source C: Texas Water Development Board technical report (2022) authored by staff hydrologists. Transparent methodology, statewide datasets available for download, internal review documented; notes constraints (e.g., monitoring gaps) and refrains from policy prescriptions beyond data-supported scenarios. Source D: Newspaper op-ed by a former Texas legislator arguing for relaxed pumping caps. No methods or data; relies on anecdotal evidence and appeals to economic growth; acknowledges political perspective but provides no sources.
Which source exhibits the most problematic conflict of interest and bias likely to undermine its value for advanced research on Texas groundwater policy?
Source A, because university affiliation and peer review can introduce groupthink that makes it less reliable than nonacademic sources.
Source B, because it is funded by industries directly affected by groundwater rules, uses opaque methods and proprietary data, and selectively cites favorable studies.
Source C, because government authorship inherently makes it less trustworthy than private organizations, regardless of its transparent datasets.
Source D, because op-eds are always unbiased personal reflections that do not warrant scrutiny for conflicts of interest.
Explanation
Source B shows a direct conflict of interest (industry funders), opaque methodology, and selective citation—strong indicators of problematic bias. Source A is peer-reviewed with open data and independent funding; Source C is transparent and methodical despite being a government report; Source D is opinionated but lacks a specific conflict-of-interest structure comparable to B's funder alignment.
Source A: Peer-reviewed cohort study in a transportation safety journal by a university-led team. Pre-registered analysis, links hospital admissions to e-scooter incidents across three cities, provides a data dictionary and code, discusses confounders and limitations, and discloses no corporate funding. Source B: U.S. transportation agency meta-analysis (2023) with a registered protocol, transparent inclusion/exclusion criteria, risk-of-bias ratings, comprehensive data tables, and an errata policy; authors are career analysts with no reported conflicts. Source C: Micromobility Alliance white paper funded by major e-scooter companies. Glossy presentation, uses proprietary platform data without third-party validation, focuses on favorable cities, and downplays studies reporting higher injury rates; methods are summarized but not reproducible. Source D: Conference talk by a startup CEO highlighting anecdotal success stories; no citations, no data access, and no methodological detail.
Which source shows problematic bias that would most undermine its value for advanced research on e-scooter safety?
Source A, because being peer-reviewed means the authors are biased toward complex methods that inflate risk estimates.
Source B, because government meta-analyses are automatically biased toward regulation, regardless of transparency.
Source C, because it is funded by companies with a financial stake, relies on non-validated proprietary data, and selectively highlights favorable evidence.
Source D, because personal talks are always unbiased and therefore more credible than formal studies.
Explanation
Source C's funder ties, proprietary non-validated data, and selective use of evidence indicate problematic bias. Source A and B adhere to rigorous standards (pre-registration, risk-of-bias assessment, reproducibility). Source D is weak evidence but the core issue is lack of rigor, not funder-driven bias.
Source A: Peer-reviewed education economics article by a University of Texas–Dallas scholar in a leading journal. Uses statewide panel data and a difference-in-differences design to estimate effects of Texas school finance changes on district outcomes. Provides an open OSF repository with code, datasets, robustness checks, and a clear disclosure of no district or vendor funding. Source B: Texas Legislative Budget Board (LBB) report (2021) with nonpartisan analysts. Clearly documents methods, datasets, and assumptions; provides appendices for replication; notes limitations; internally reviewed, but not externally peer-reviewed. Source C: Policy brief by Texans for Efficient Schools, an advocacy organization supported by anonymous donors. Emphasizes rhetoric, cites a narrow set of favorable studies, no reproducible methods, and extrapolates beyond data. Source D: Professional association newsletter summarizing research highlights for school administrators. Accessible and well-formatted, but methods and data are not provided; functions as a digest rather than original research.
Which source demonstrates the highest credibility and reliability for advanced academic research on Texas school finance effects?
Source A, because it is peer-reviewed, uses a rigorous causal design with statewide data, shares code and data, and has clear conflict-of-interest disclosures.
Source B, because internal review alone guarantees it is more credible than any peer-reviewed academic study.
Source C, because popularity among stakeholders and persuasive tone indicate it reflects the consensus and is therefore the most credible.
Source D, because its clear layout and accessibility make it more authoritative than studies requiring statistical expertise.
Explanation
Source A combines peer review, rigorous causal methods, open materials, and transparent disclosures—key markers of high credibility for advanced research. Source B is strong and transparent but lacks external peer review; Source C and D lack methodological transparency and independence.
Source A: State health department surveillance bulletin (2024) on rural hospital outcomes. Preliminary findings, limited to reported cases, cautions about underreporting, no external peer review. Source B: Policy paper from the Center for Market Medicine, a think tank funded by a hospital lobbying consortium. Economic model is not shared; results emphasize funders' policy preferences; conflicts disclosed but methods are opaque. Source C: National medical association guideline on rural care coordination. Multidisciplinary panel, documented conflict-of-interest management, evidence tables, but primarily clinical recommendations rather than comparative outcomes research. Source D: Systematic review and meta-analysis in a top medical journal. Pre-registered protocol, PRISMA flow diagram, risk-of-bias assessments, sensitivity analyses, and open data/code; funded by an independent public agency with no industry ties.
Which source demonstrates the highest credibility and reliability for advanced research on rural hospital outcomes?
Source A, because preliminary bulletins are inherently more reliable than studies that take longer to publish.
Source B, because alignment with stakeholder policy goals is a strong indicator of objective truth.
Source C, because professional consensus always outweighs systematically synthesized evidence with data transparency.
Source D, because it is a pre-registered, peer-reviewed systematic review with transparent synthesis procedures, risk-of-bias assessments, and open materials.
Explanation
Source D meets the strongest standards for credibility: peer review, pre-registration, comprehensive synthesis with risk-of-bias analysis, and open data/code with independent funding. Sources A and B lack methodological transparency and independence; Source C is credible for practice guidance but is not primary comparative research.