The author employs broad generalizations and imprecise remarks rather than facts, data, or concrete examples. Is a sign that a source may not be reliable. This response has been verified as correct and useful. It can help you determine whether a source is trustworthy.
An example would be if the author made a statement like "all Asians have black hair" and there are many different races of people in Asia who don't all have black hair. That would be a good indication that the source might not be accurate.
Another example would be if the source seemed more concerned with selling books/movies than giving true information. For example, a source could be a news site that publishes articles often containing large amounts of misinformation designed to attract readers/viewers.
Yet another example would be if the source offered no proof for its claims whatsoever. For example, a source could be a website, blog, or article that claims to have scientific evidence proving that aliens have visited Earth but doesn't provide any such evidence.
In conclusion, indicators that a source may not be accurate include: (1) uncertainty about specifics, (2) ambiguity about specifics, (3) reliance on broad generalizations, and (4) lack of proof for claims made by the source.
An indirect source is one that is quoted in another source. It is provided by the U.S. National Library of Medicine's PubMed database. Indirect sources are often more reliable than direct sources.
Expert Verified Answer The source of the information is uncertain or unknown. 2. The material is based on non-peer-reviewed papers. The information has not been evaluated by subject matter experts or is not supported by a consensus of subject matter experts. 3. There are significant errors in data analysis or logic use in supporting the claim.
An expert verified answer is given when there is disagreement about the reliability of a source. In this case, different experts have different views about how reliable this source is. An expert verifies another source if that person agrees with its reliability rating. For example, an expert may verify another source if it is a peer-reviewed paper.
Sources can be rated as credible, less credible, or not credible at all. Credible sources are those that are well respected in their field and contain information that other people agree is true. Less credible sources are those that are not widely regarded in their fields, such as books from publishers who do not require their authors to show evidence of expertise (they usually just need to pay them). Sources that no one else rates as credible or less credible are not valid information sources.
When reading articles or listening to news reports, always try to find multiple sources for each fact you read or hear. This will help you understand different points of view on events and issues.
Examine if the author backs up his or her knowledge claims with appropriate types of public evidence, both empirical and logical, and whether the author mentions additional research that is relevant to his or her assertions. These are possibly the most crucial factors in judging a source's dependability. An accurate source is one that gets things right more often than it gets them wrong.
How might you improve the accuracy of your sources? Try not to let your emotions influence what you read. If something makes you feel good or bad, then it probably isn't true. Also, take notes while reading so you can better recall what you've learned. And lastly, ask questions: if you aren't sure about something you've been told, look it up yourself. If other people can find the information you're looking for, so can you.
So, the accuracy of a source is how often it gets things right vs. how often it gets things wrong. This seems like an easy concept to understand but an important one to practice. Accuracy is needed in sources used for information gathering to make sure you're not missing out on any critical facts.
In conclusion, the accuracy of a source is how often it gets things right vs. how often it gets things wrong.
The principal concept and point of view are the most important factors to examine while judging the legitimacy of any source. If one knows which perspective is being used to evaluate evidence, then it is possible to judge whether that perspective is legitimate or not. For example, historians usually regard written documents as valid sources because they were created by people who wanted to tell the truth about their experiences. Archaeologists look for signs of use-wear on objects found in the ground. They believe that very old things are unlikely to be clean and undamaged, so they trust findings based on evidence of wear-and-tear.
Valid sources cannot always be judged simply by looking at them. For example, an eyewitness account of something that happened later claimed by someone else to have happened even earlier is not valid evidence. It might seem like good evidence, but it can be fooled by clever criminals and scoundrels. In such cases, you need other ways of deciding how reliable the evidence is. For example, you could ask people who knew both the witness and the defendant what they thought about the testimony. Or you could try to replicate what was done on the day in question to see if it would produce the same result again.
Judging the credibility of sources is only part of the story though.