The document discusses evaluating the credibility of claims and sources by considering two key questions: the credibility of the claim itself and the credibility of the source. It emphasizes the importance of critical thinking, verifying claims against known facts, and seeking information from reputable sources, especially in light of common misinformation online. The text also describes the role of experts, peer-review processes, and the evaluation of news sources to determine reliability and accuracy.

1. Credibility
When claims are presented to you, evaluate them by asking two
key questions:
1. How credible is the claim itself?
2. How credible is the source of the claim?
First, let’s consider the credibility of the claim itself. When
you’re thinking critically, you’re evaluating every claim against
what you already know to see if it seems plausible or
implausible. Consider the following claims:
I can run three miles in 30 minutes.
I can teleport up to 300 meters away.
Does one seem more believable than the other? That’s what we
mean by considering the credibility of the claim. In fact, the
literal meaning of “incredible” is “unbelievable” or
“impossible.”
You’re constantly evaluating claims against things you already
know. And the more you know about a topic, the better you can
judge a claim’s credibility. For example, imagine that your car
has developed an odd rattling noise. A mechanic tells you that
it’s likely the heat shield protecting your catalytic converter. If
you don’t know exactly what the catalytic converter is or where
to find it under the hood, you might run this diagnosis by a
trusted friend who has more experience working on cars to see
if it sounds credible.
Whenever you’re evaluating a claim, keep an eye out for the
following:
· Whether evidence is offered to support the claim
· Whether there are any obvious inaccuracies
· Whether the claim is an observation or an inferred conclusion
Every day, according to the Department of Transportation, 1.73
million people travel on domestic flights in the United States.
And every day, airlines dispense more than 10 million plastic
cups to these passengers—cups that go straight into our
landfills.

2. Does this sound credible? There are three claims here. First, do
you find the Department of Transportation credible? If you do a
quick search, you’ll find that the website of the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics does in fact provide this exact
information. Now, based on your personal experience with air
travel, does it seem likely that each passenger uses about five
cups when they fly? Finally, do all airlines throw away these
cups or do some of them have recycling programs? These are
the kinds of questions to ask when sizing up the credibility of a
claim.
Answer the following questions about the material above.
Multiple Choice Question
A credible claim has which of the following characteristics?
· It uses inductive reasoning to reach a conclusion.
· It appears to be plausibly true.
· It contains premises and a conclusion.
· It is unexpected and memorable.
Multiple Choice Question
Marcus claims that if you have diabetes, you should avoid
starchy foods like bread and potatoes. Which of the following
situations would MOST likely make you question the credibility
of his claim?
· Several of your family members have diabetes and were told
by their doctors that starch-heavy foods can be incorporated
into a healthy diabetic diet.
· You remember seeing a news report on television that
highlighted several studies showing a link between diabetes and
the consumption of starchy foods.
· Marcus is a diabetic himself and had a number of diabetes-
related health problems when he ate too many starchy foods.
· Marcus cites a number of peer-reviewed sources to back up his
claim.
· Response Board Question
Top of Form
Your friend tells you that neutron stars have an escape velocity
of twice the speed of light. How would you go about

3. determining whether or not her claim is credible? Practice:
Credibility
How Much Do We Waste?
Forty percent of the food we produce in this country never gets
eaten.
Your junk mail alone adds 39 pounds of garbage to the landfill
every year.
Somewhere between 500 billion and one trillion plastic bags are
consumed worldwide each year.
Shocking statistics can be an impressive way to get people’s
attention and motivate them into action on behalf of a good
cause. But as with any claim, it’s worth investigating these
stated facts rather than taking them at face value. In the
following activity, you will look at several different websites to
explore the credibility of claims about waste.
Use the embedded links to answer the questions below.
The first step to evaluating credibility is to ask yourself whether
or not the claim seems believable at first glance.
Poll Question
Suppose you hear someone say that people in the United States
throw away 250 million tons of garbage each year. Off the top
of your head, how credible does this claim seem?
Top of Form
· Very credible
· Credible
· Not sure
· Not very credible
· Not credible at all
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Sometimes numerical claims are easier to evaluate when you do
the math and break down exactly what the claim is saying.
Multiple Choice Question
According to the U.S. Census, there were approximately 309

4. million people in the United States in 2010. If the statistic about
Americans throwing away 250 million tons of garbage per year
is true, roughly how much trash would each person be throwing
away each year, on average?
· a little less than ten tons per person
· a little less than one hundred tons per person
· a little less than half of a ton per person
· a little less than one ton per person
When you’re investigating a claim about which you have very
little background information, websites like Wikipedia can
often serve as good starting points to find out more information.
Multiple Choice Question
Look at the Wikipedia entry on Landfills in the United States.
According to this page, how much trash did Americans produce
in 2010?
· about 250 tons of trash
· about 250 million tons of trash
· about 350 million tons of trash
· about 150 tons of trash
Because websites like Wikipedia rely on user-written and user-
edited content, to investigate further, you want to find out
where Wikipedia got this information to better determine if it’s
accurate.
Multiple Choice Question
The footnote accompanying that particular statistic goes to the
Landfills page of the EPA’s website. What does this webpage
say about how much trash Americans generate per year?
· It does not provide any statistics about how much trash
Americans generate each year.
· It says that Americans generate 100 million tons of trash each
year.
· It says that Americans generate 250 tons of trash each year.
· It says that Americans generate 258 million tons of trash each
year.
· Response Board Question
Top of Form

5. Knowing what you know now, do you think this claim is
credible? If not, what other information would you need before
you’d accept it as definite fact?
To recap, here is a list of basic steps to follow when
investigating a claim:
1. Ask yourself if the claim sounds credible off the top of your
head.
2. Think about what the claim is actually stating, doing the math
if necessary.
3. Look up the claim on the Internet to see where it came from.
4. Once you find the claim, check if the website references a
source.
5. If the website does provide references, investigate those
websites for credibility.
Use the steps above to investigate the following claim.
· Response Board Question
Top of Form
As you’re browsing the web, you come across this site, which
claims that Americans throw away 2.5 million plastic bottles
every hour. Go through the first three steps from above. Using
just that information, explain why you believe (or don’t believe)
this claim. Experts
As we said previously, when claims are presented to you, you
should evaluate them with two questions:
1. How credible is the claim itself?
2. How credible is the source of the claim?
Now let’s take up the challenge of evaluating a source. This
process also relies on two essential questions:
1. Is the source likely to have accurate information and
authentic knowledge?
2. Is there reason to think that the source might be intentionally
misleading?Expertise
An expert is someone who knows more than most people about a
specific subject. We can’t be knowledgeable about everything,
so we look to experts for guidance. Expert opinion doesn’t
guarantee truth, but it is usually a reliable guide to it. You must

6. have good reasons to be skeptical of a claim held by experts in
the field.
If you’re having trouble deciding if someone is truly an expert,
here are some things to look for:
· Education from reputable institutions or in relevant programs
· Experience—the more in the field, the better
· Professional accomplishments that are directly relevant
· Reputation among peersLimits of Expertise
Expertise adds credibility, but it only goes so far. As a critical
thinker, you’ll want to keep an eye out for the ways that the
credibility of experts is damaged.
Expertise loses credibility when the expert
· makes a claim outside their area of expertise (remember the
fallacy of unqualified authority);
· makes simple factual errors or mistakes in logic or reasoning;
· seems to be speaking from an emotional orientation;
· has a clear conflict of interests (e.g., being paid to present a
specific view);
· doesn't provide sufficient support for tenuous claims; or
· holds a view in direct opposition to most other experts in the
same subject area.Peer Review
If a medical doctor does research and uncovers, say, a new
method of treating cystic fibrosis, the finding isn’t considered
valid until it has been reviewed by other doctors specializing in
this same field. This is called peer review, and it’s used in
numerous disciplines.
When reviewing a peer’s work, scholars are typically checking
to see that the author knows what he or she is talking about, has
taken into account previous work in the field, and has added
something new to the conversation about the topic.
Professional communities often publish journals that include
only peer-reviewed articles as the official means of “certifying”
new information as credible. This is most common with
scientific research, academic scholarship, and professional
journals. A peer-reviewed journal is typically your best source
for the most credible information in such fields.News

7. For more general information, such as today’s news, our most
credible sources are the major publishers and broadcasters like
the New York Times, the BBC, and National Public Radio.
These organizations are closely watched by competitors, critics,
and colleagues, and the appearance of any false information is
considered scandalous.
When the credibility of these sources is called into question, it
is typically on the basis of the following errors:
· Skewed perspective (i.e., overemphasizing particular issues or
viewpoints)
· Missing information
· Unprofessional reporters
· The profit motive (i.e., advertisers influencing content)
It’s appropriate to be wary of what you see on the news if
something in the report contradicts what you already know with
a reasonable degree of certainty or if support for a claim isn’t
provided. Being human, reporters can
· make mistakes;
· let personal opinions govern how they research, interpret, and
tell a story; or
· use the available information to make inferences that aren’t
justified.
Different news outlets will cover stories in varying depths. For
example, after an eight-hour congressional hearing, NPR will
typically run a five-minute story, while CNN will cover the
same event in 30 seconds. If you find a news story that seems
puzzling to you, the confusion can often be cleared up simply
by finding a source offering deeper coverage.
Answer the following questions about the material above.
Multiple Choice Question
Arlene is a neurologist and claims that if you have less sleep
one night, you’re likely to have more vivid and numerous
dreams the following night. You might be inclined to question
Arlene’s expertise on the subject if you found out which of the
following things?
· The vast majority of neurologists believe that less sleep yields

8. less dreaming the following night.
· Arlene has a PhD and has been certified by the American
Academy of Sleep Medicine.
· Arlene has been working at a sleep research center for the last
12 years.
· Arlene provides support for her claim and cites other well-
respected experts in the field.
Multiple Choice Question
If an article has been peer-reviewed, you can count on which of
the following?
· It probably has a strong bias.
· It is less credible than mainstream news outlets.
· Other experts in the field have assessed it for quality control.
· The facts contained within it are guaranteed to be accurate.
Practice: Experts
Hasty Reporting, Regrettable Mistake
As previously noted, the largest news publishers and
broadcasters are usually very credible. But even giants like NPR
are not infallible. In the following article, Alicia C. Shepherd
describes the events leading to a crucial reporting error during
the coverage of the shooting of Representative Gabrielle
Giffords and the remorse that members of the news organization
felt afterwards.
Read the article below, and then answer the following
questions.
NPR’s Giffords Mistake: Re-Learning the Lesson of Checking
Sources
Multiple Choice Question
What mistake did NPR make when reporting the Giffords story?
· They reported that the gunman had come up to Giffords’s desk
and started shooting people, but he actually used a sniper rifle
from a distance.
· They reported that Giffords had been killed, but she was
actually still alive and in the hospital.
· They reported that Giffords had been shot, but only the people

9. around her had actually been shot.
· They reported that the shooting had taken place in a shopping
center, but it actually took place at a football stadium.
Short Answer Question
For what two reasons was this mistake especially serious?
In this instance, NPR’s blunder was a result of which of the
following mistakes?
· NPR had only one source for the report instead of at least two.
· NPR tried to immediately correct the mistake via email.
· Senior editors were consulted before going on air.
· NPR did not use a source with accurate, firsthand information.
· Response Board Question
Top of Form
The article mentions that other news sources, including CNN,
Fox News, and the New York Times, repeated NPR’s false
story. To what extent do you think these other news
organizations are accountable for the mistake?
Twitter plays a role in the story of this reporting error. How do
you think the rise of social media has impacted source
credibility? On the whole, do you think social media outlets
have helped to challenge questionable claims and hold the
mainstream media accountable, or do they tend to lower the
quality of information by spreading rumors and misinformation
faster? Explain.Bottom of Form
Which of the following BEST describes the writer’s evaluation
of the situation?
· NPR got all the heat for reporting a mistake, but really their
sources should be blamed.
· NPR has lost all credibility and should never be trusted again.
· The scandal was overblown and it wasn’t that big of a deal
that NPR made one small mistake.
· NPR made a terrible, harmful mistake; however, they should
be commended for their willingness to admit fault. Everyone
Else

10. Beyond formal scholarship and major news organizations, there
is an ocean of sources that provide information and, in some
cases, misinformation. In the digital age, literally anyone can
make a claim or offer their opinion on something you’re
interested in.
Which earbuds should I buy?
How big should a chicken coop be?
What is business casual dress?
The most common ways to answer such questions are to ask
friends, seek out people who might know, or look at the top hits
on Google. But how can you tell which sources are most
credible?
Information available on the Internet ranges from personal
webpages expressing the opinion of one person unchecked by
anyone else to digital outlets of the credible journal articles,
experts, and major news organizations we discussed earlier.
When reading (or watching) anything on the web, the questions
you ask should be the same as those that apply in any other
context:
· Who is speaking or writing?
· What is the intended audience?
· Where are they speaking or writing?
· Who has invested the time and/or money to disseminate this?
The answers to these questions help you determine the
perspective of a particular website, page, project, or author.
Knowing the perspective helps you evaluate the claims being
made.
Most information is put out there for a reason, so you can’t
escape the fact that everyone offering information is doing so
with some kind of bias or agenda. Of course, just because they
have a perspective doesn’t necessarily mean the information is
inaccurate. But if you can identify the perspective, you can find
sources with competing perspectives to round out the picture.
For example, in an election between two candidates, you’ll
learn a lot more by looking at both candidates’websites than by
looking at just one and assuming it tells you all you need to

11. know.
It’s also important to be wary of user-written and user-edited
information resources such as Wikipedia, About.com, or Yahoo
Answers. While these sites often come up early on in search
engine results, there is no guarantee that their content is
authored by individuals with genuine expertise on the subject.
These sites can provide fast information for low-stakes
questions (like finding out what films a familiar-looking TV
guest star appeared in) but you should cross-reference the
information with additional resources for any matter of
importance.
The first step in evaluating Internet resources is to start with the
URL or web address of the page you’re looking at. The URL
will offer clues about the website’s type and purpose..com =
commercial site
Some commercial sites are promoting their own business, like
Disney.com. These are perhaps best understood as
advertisements. This doesn’t mean the information they present
is false, but it’s important to understand the perspective of the
site.
Other commercial sites belong to businesses that let people post
whatever they want, such as YouTube.com. These sites rarely
play any role in vouching for the validity of the content on their
site..org = nonprofit site
Most .org sites are hosted by nonprofit organizations, and there
are few nonprofit organizations without some sort of
perspective. So you’ll find different information about gun
control at a site like NRA.org, which is set up to advocate for
the rights of gun owners, than you will at a site like
BradyCampaign.org, which is set up to advocate for tougher
controls on gun ownership..gov = government site
Government sites are those hosted by the government. How
credible you find them may depend on how much you trust
government in general, but most government agencies have an
interest in accurate data themselves and are not motivated to
spread misinformation or deception..edu = educational or

12. academic site
Educational sites belong to an accredited university and
typically provide information about that particular school. Some
of these websites also host pages that offer information about
particular academic topics or research projects of interest to
faculty at the school.
So it’s up to you, as a critical thinker, to ask a few questions:
· What’s the site’s reputation? If you’re not sure, you can
search to see if the site is ever referenced by other sites you
already find credible.
· Is the site well-produced and free of sloppy writing, spelling
errors, and editorial mistakes?
· Does the author or speaker offer any credentials lending
credibility to their claims?
· Could the information be outdated? For example, a 2004
article reviewing the best earbuds on the market is most likely
no longer accurate.
· What person or organization created, sponsors, or vouches for
the credibility of the information on this website or page? And
if they have a strong perspective from one side of a
controversial issue, what other sources could help round out the
picture?
Answer the following questions about the material above.
Multiple Choice Question
Which of the following is the best approach to seeking
information on the Internet?
· If you can tell a website has a bias, assume that its content
isn’t true.
· Take advantage of the information the Internet has to offer,
but approach everything you read with a critical eye.
· Don’t trust any information from online sources, because
anybody can say anything on the Internet.
· Trust everything you read on websites with URLs that end in
.edu, .gov, and .org, and don’t trust what you read on websites
with URLs that end in .com.
Multiple Choice Question

13. Which of the following situations would be the MOST
appropriate use of a user-written reference source like
Wikipedia?
· learning what you need to know about Andrew Jackson so you
can write a research paper evaluating his presidency
· looking up symptoms of a medical condition to determine if
you have a particular disease
· obtaining unbiased reporting of a current event as it’s
happening
· gathering some background information on what mycology is
all about before diving into reading an academic article about
the topic
Multiple Choice Question
Based on its URL alone, you could safely assume that the
website located at http://www.cdkc.edu/ is which of the
following?
· an academic institution’s website
· a nonprofit organization’s website
· a government website
· a commercial webpage Practice: Everyone Else
Fun in the Sun
One of the most common pieces of wisdom is that exposure to
UV rays from the sun can lead to skin cancer—and therefore,
wearing sunscreen and limiting time in the sun are two of the
best safeguards against it. However, in the abundance of
information on the web, you will occasionally find divergent
opinions. When making decisions about your health, it’s
important to critically evaluate your sources. This lesson will
have you evaluate the credibility of websites making claims
about the benefits and dangers of sunscreen use.
While there are many aspects to evaluating websites for
credibility, this activity will focus on a few simple steps:
1. Read the article and identify the claims it is making.
2. Look for what support, if any, is given for the claims.
3. Identify the author and what his or her credentials are.

14. 4. Identify the organization behind the webpage and what their
purpose is.
Read the article at the link below, and then answer the
following questions.
Sunscreen May Not Be Your Friend
Short Answer Question
What basic argument regarding sunscreen does this author
make?
Multiple Choice Question
Check out the references the author provides and the sources he
cites in defense of his argument. Which of the following is
TRUE of the author’s use of references and citations in this
article?
· The author includes several quotations from medical doctors
that support his claims.
· The author makes several references in the body of the article
to experts who back up his claims.
· The author uses footnotes to cite many articles that back up
his claims.
· The author includes only one citation to an article whose link
does not work.
Multiple Choice Question
According to the About page, who is the author, and what
credentials does he have?
· He is a biologist specializing in evolutionary studies.
· He is a former athlete and was an undergraduate biology major
in college.
· He is a board-certified dermatologist with many years of
medical practice.
· He is a licensed chiropractor with degrees in fitness, health,
and nutrition.
Short Answer Question
Use the website’s Home page and describe what the purpose of
the website appears to be.
Take Two

15. Now that you’ve explored the credibility of one website, apply
those same practices to another article about sunscreen use.
Read the article below and then answer the following questions.
Sunscreens: Safe and Effective
Short Answer Question
What basic argument regarding sunscreen do these authors
make?
Multiple Choice Question
In this article, which of the following is TRUE of the authors’
use of footnotes and citations?
· The authors do not include any citations for the evidence
presented in the article.
· The authors do not make any scientific claims that would
require footnotes or citations.
· The authors use over 30 footnotes to back their claims, many
of which point to peer-reviewed studies.
· The authors cite one main article where they got their
information.
Multiple Choice Question
Who are the authors, and what credentials do they have?
· They are both medical doctors and photobiologists who study
the interaction of ultraviolet (UV) radiation and the skin.
· They are manufacturers of sunscreen who have spent years
reviewing different brands.
· They are researchers affiliated with and funded by the
National Institutes of Health’s Office of Dietary Supplements.
· They are investigative journalists who specialize in exposing
misleading advice from pharmaceutical companies.
Short Answer Question
Use the website’s About Us page and describe what the purpose
of the website appears to be.
Multiple Choice Question
Of the two websites, which is a more credible source?
· The article from the Skin Cancer Foundation is a more
credible source, because it is longer and goes into more detail
about the issues.

16. · The article from the Skin Cancer Foundation is a more
credible source, because it is written by qualified experts and
provides citations from other credible sources.
· The article from Mark’s Daily Apple is more credible, because
it questions common wisdom and challenges claims made by the
FDA.
· The article from Mark’s Daily Apple is a more credible
source, because the author uses his personal experience to back
up his claims.
Your Turn
Read and evaluate the website at the link below, and then
answer the following question.
Food Renegade: Should You Use Sunscreen
· Response Board Question
Top of Form
Explain to what extent you think that this website is credible.
Include information such as who the author is, whether or not
the author cites sources, and your ruling on this site’s
credentials.
Bottom of Form
·
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form