A student is arguing that a new drug treatment is effective and cites a peer-reviewed study as proof. What is the most important limitation of this move?
APeer-reviewed studies are not credible sources for medical claims
BThe citation shows the source exists and was peer-reviewed, but the study itself may be flawed, limited in scope, or contradicted by other evidence
CCiting only one source is always insufficient regardless of its quality
DThe citation proves the claim only if the journal has a high impact factor
A citation proves nothing about the truth of a claim — it only establishes that a source exists. The source itself may have methodological flaws, a small sample size, conflicts of interest, or may have since been retracted or contradicted. This is why evaluating the source itself (credentials, methodology, funding, replication) is a separate and essential step after locating it. Option D is a common misconception: impact factor is one signal of a journal's standards, not a guarantee of any individual study's validity.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
A writer needs to support a claim about the current unemployment rate in the United States. Which source type is best suited to establish this specific claim, and why?
AA peer-reviewed economics journal article, because peer-reviewed sources are always most authoritative
BA news article from a major outlet, because journalists report current events
CA government statistical database (e.g., the Bureau of Labor Statistics), because it directly tracks and publishes this specific measurement
DAn economics textbook, because textbooks synthesize reliable information
Source authority is not a fixed hierarchy — it is fitness-for-purpose. For current government statistics, the agency that collects and defines those statistics is the authoritative source. A peer-reviewed article might analyze unemployment trends but will cite the BLS as its data source anyway. A news article will cite the BLS. A textbook will be out of date. The right question is: 'What kind of source can *produce* this type of claim?' For empirical measurements of national statistics, the measuring agency is definitive.
Question 3 True / False
Wikipedia should rarely be used in academic research because it is an unreliable source.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
This overstates the case. Wikipedia is not appropriate as a *cited source* in most academic work — it is a tertiary source with variable accuracy and editorial oversight. But 'never use Wikipedia' is incorrect: Wikipedia is a valuable starting point for identifying terminology, understanding unfamiliar fields, and most importantly, locating primary sources through its reference sections. A researcher who follows Wikipedia's citations upstream to peer-reviewed articles and primary sources is using it correctly. The problem is stopping at Wikipedia rather than continuing to its sources.
Question 4 True / False
The practical function of citation — allowing readers to find and verify your sources — is actually the more important of citation's two functions, since without it, attribution alone is just an acknowledgment.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Both functions are essential and interdependent, so ranking one above the other is misleading. The ethical function (attribution) maintains intellectual accountability — without it, academic communities cannot trace ideas, assign credit, or detect plagiarism. The practical function (verification) enables readers to evaluate and extend research. Citation formats encode both: they identify who made the claim (attribution) and provide enough metadata to retrieve the source (verification). Neither works without the other; a citation that credits someone but cannot be found is useless for verification, and one that is retrievable but anonymous undermines accountability.
Question 5 Short Answer
Why does the *purpose* of a source matter when evaluating how to use it in an argument?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: A source produced to inform has a fundamentally different relationship to evidence than one produced to persuade, sell, or advocate. Sources with persuasive or commercial purposes may selectively present, emphasize, or omit evidence to serve their goal. This doesn't automatically disqualify them, but it means they require more calibration: their claims should be checked against independent sources, and the argument should acknowledge the source's purpose and potential biases. A source's purpose also indicates what kind of evidence it can reliably establish — an advocacy organization can document lived experiences but cannot serve as a neutral arbiter of contested empirical questions.
The key distinction is between a source's *capability* (what evidence it can produce) and its *reliability* (how much to trust that evidence for a given type of claim). Purpose interacts with both: a pharmaceutical company's study on its own drug has a structural incentive to present favorable results, even if its methods are rigorous. Recognizing purpose lets you use sources with precision — not discarding them wholesale, but understanding exactly what weight they can carry.