Evaluating Sources — Practice · Grade 10 English

Chapter: Research & Source-Based Writing

What this practice covers

By the end of Evaluating Sources you should be able to:

11 questions, multiple choice and written answer, each with a worked explanation.

Vocabulary used: credibility, relevance, bias, primary source, secondary source, currency.

Problem 1

Which source is generally MOST credible for a research question about the safety of a new prescription drug?
  1. A testimonial on the drug maker's marketing page
  2. A viral post claiming the drug 'changed my life'
  3. A comment left under a video, with no name or sources
  4. A peer-reviewed clinical study in a medical journal
Answer and explanation

A peer-reviewed clinical study in a medical journal

A peer-reviewed clinical study is vetted by outside experts and relies on verifiable methods, making it the most credible option; the others have unknown authorship or a clear promotional motive.

Problem 2

Explain the difference between a primary and a secondary source, using an example of each connected to a scientific discovery.
Answer and explanation

A primary source is firsthand or original, like a scientist's raw experimental data or original lab notes; a secondary source analyzes or interprets that material afterward, like a science journalist's article or a textbook summarizing the discovery. The primary source is the evidence itself; the secondary source is someone's interpretation of it.

Problem 3

A student's research question is about how sleep affects TEENAGERS' test scores. They find a rigorous, peer-reviewed study — but it studied only adults over 40. What is the best judgment?
  1. The source is credible but not directly relevant to teenagers, so it shouldn't be treated as direct evidence for this question.
  2. Reject the source as worthless because it must be biased.
  3. Change the research question to match whatever the source studied.
  4. Use it as strong evidence, since any peer-reviewed study is credible enough.
Answer and explanation

The source is credible but not directly relevant to teenagers, so it shouldn't be treated as direct evidence for this question.

A source can be perfectly credible yet not relevant to your specific question; a study of adults over 40 does not directly answer a question about teenagers, so it can't stand as direct evidence here.

Problem 4

Why does the 'currency' of a source matter far more for a question about cybersecurity threats than for a question about the causes of World War I? Give your reasoning.
Answer and explanation

Cybersecurity changes constantly — new threats and defenses appear every year — so an old source may describe a landscape that no longer exists and mislead the researcher. The causes of World War I are historically settled and change very little over time, so well-researched older sources on that topic can remain reliable. Currency matters most for fast-changing subjects.

Problem 5

A student finds a dramatic statistic on an unfamiliar website, but cannot locate the original study it claims to cite anywhere else. What is the BEST course of action?
  1. Use the statistic, since it is specific and sounds convincing.
  2. Treat the statistic with skepticism and avoid using it unless the original source can be verified independently.
  3. Cite the website as the original researcher of the statistic.
  4. Round the statistic off to make it easier to defend.
Answer and explanation

Treat the statistic with skepticism and avoid using it unless the original source can be verified independently.

An unverifiable claim shouldn't be trusted as evidence; careful researchers triangulate — confirming a striking statistic against its real, checkable origin before relying on it, or leaving it out.

Problem 6

Decide how to use the sources. Give a detail and explain its relevance.
Answer and explanation

Trace the count to the original report and check whether attendance includes a different group. Until that distinction is documented, cite the report’s 38 volunteers and label the larger claim unverified.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 7

A learner writes: “A .org address guarantees an unbiased source.” Explain the problem and produce a better response.
Answer and explanation

An address describes registration, not evidence quality. Investigate authorship, funding, method, and corroboration.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 8

Compare what you must inspect in these two cases. What can transfer, and what must be checked again?
Answer and explanation

Evaluate expertise, access to evidence, method, publication context, purpose, date, and traceability. These are questions to investigate, not a scorecard based on appearance. The method transfers, but the particular detail, scope, and context must be read again. Trace the count to the original report and check whether attendance includes a different group. Until that distinction is documented, cite the report’s 38 volunteers and label the larger claim unverified.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 9

Using an assigned reading or one exercise source, write a developed response applying evaluating sources. Aim for 220–320 words; name the reading or reproduce the sentence you revise.
Answer and explanation

The company has a sales interest, but that alone does not prove the count false. Ask for sample size, measurement, selection and comparison; the claim cannot establish tutoring caused the improvement without those details. A complete response supplies context, a focused claim, a brief supporting detail, explanation, and a relevant qualification. Do not simply repeat this model.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 10

Write two specific feedback comments on a response to this unit: one on accuracy or meaning and one on evidence or language. Then state a revision priority.
Answer and explanation

Check whether the response explains evaluate expertise, access to evidence, method, publication context, purpose, date, and traceability. these are questions to investigate, not a scorecard based on appearance. Ask for a relevant detail and the reason it supports the conclusion. Prioritize the mistaken assumption shown here: “A .org address guarantees an unbiased source.”

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Problem 11

Choose a fresh sentence or detail from the assigned selection. Explain how this unit’s method applies, and identify one uncertainty or limitation.
Answer and explanation

The report documents litter removal, the resident distinguishes water contamination, and the memo separates funding purposes. The event can be successful within its stated scope while water quality remains unresolved. The response must supply its own precise detail and explain it; copying the model without fresh evidence is insufficient.

Use the criteria to compare your reasoning, not to copy the model’s wording. A supported alternative interpretation may earn full credit.

Response criteria

  • Make an accurate, focused claim or revision.
  • Use a relevant detail or a clearly explained language choice.
  • Explain the relationship and recognize a relevant limit.

Browse all courses