Currency
You find two articles on AI: one published in 2024, the other in 2019. The 2019 article has stronger citations. Which is more current, and which might still be more useful? Why?
The 2024 article is more current, but if the 2019 one is better sourced and still relevant, it could be more useful for foundational context.
You’re writing about the impact of video games on mental health. One source discusses technology broadly, another focuses only on video games and anxiety in teens. Which is more relevant and why?
The second source — it’s more narrowly aligned with your topic and target population.
You have two articles on climate policy: one by an economist with no climate science background, and another by a climate scientist. Both are from reputable journals. Which is more authoritative and why?
The climate scientist’s article — the topic relates more directly to their expertise, even if both are published.
Two sources present the same statistic, but one gives context (e.g., sample size, location), and one doesn’t. How does that affect your judgment of accuracy?
The one with context is more accurate — without knowing where or how a number came from, it's easy to misinterpret.
A webpage on eating habits uses data but also includes emotionally charged language and dramatic photos. What does this say about its purpose?
It likely mixes informing with persuasion — the emotional tone suggests it aims to influence more than educate.
An article about cryptocurrency from 2021 includes a disclaimer that it hasn't been updated. Another from 2023 includes current price charts but lacks detailed analysis. Which is more current, and how do you balance timeliness with depth?
The 2023 one is more current, but the lack of analysis weakens it. Depending on your needs, the 2021 article might offer better insights, even if it's older.
A detailed report on mental health in rural areas and a broad overview of national mental health statistics are available. Your paper is on access to therapy in small towns. Which is more relevant, and why?
The rural-focused report — it directly addresses your research focus, while the national overview may be too general.
You’re comparing an investigative podcast hosted by journalists and a peer-reviewed academic journal. How do you weigh their authority for a research project?
The journal is more authoritative academically, but the podcast may offer firsthand narratives or current insights not found in academic literature.
You find two studies with different conclusions about the same topic. One has a small sample size; the other was funded by a company with a stake in the results. Which is more accurate, and why is it hard to say definitively?
Both have limitations — small sample sizes can weaken findings, but funding bias can skew results. Accuracy requires examining both methodologies.
Two articles discuss gender in sports: one uses neutral tone and data, the other uses satire and sarcasm. Which better reflects a purpose to inform, and what does the tone suggest about intent?
The neutral article — informative tone aligns with objectivity; satire may aim to criticize or entertain more than to inform.
An older article from 2020 is the most comprehensive source on your topic, but a 2024 article has updated statistics and recent case studies. How do you decide which is more useful in terms of currency?
Use both — the 2020 article for depth and the 2024 one for current trends. Currency is more than age; it includes relevance and update frequency.
You’re researching social justice in education. One article focuses on race and another on income inequality. Which is more relevant — or could both be, and why?
Both may be relevant — they address overlapping factors in educational equity. Relevance depends on your thesis and scope.
You compare a TED Talk by a tech entrepreneur and a peer-reviewed paper by a university researcher. The TED Talk is more engaging but less detailed. Which is more authoritative and why might people still prefer the TED Talk?
The academic paper is more authoritative due to peer review and credentials, but TED Talks are accessible and persuasive, which appeals to broader audiences.
A health article summarizes a study without linking to it. Another quotes the study directly and includes a link. Which is more accurate, and why does source transparency matter?
The one with the direct link — it allows readers to verify the source themselves, which supports transparency and accuracy.
An organization posts a video using dramatic imagery to oppose animal testing. It provides facts, but selectively. What does this combination suggest about its purpose?
It’s likely persuasive — using emotion and selective facts indicates a goal to influence opinion, not provide balanced information.
An article on AI ethics hasn’t been updated since 2022. Another from 2024 has less depth but includes current examples like ChatGPT-5. How do you evaluate which is more current in value?
The 2024 article is more up-to-date, but the 2022 one might offer deeper ethical analysis. You may need both for a full understanding.
Your paper is on cultural representation in advertising. One article focuses on global advertising, another on a specific Super Bowl ad. How do you evaluate their relevance for your argument?
The global article offers broader context, while the Super Bowl ad provides a case study. Relevance depends on whether you’re making a general or specific argument
A government report, a nonprofit’s advocacy article, and a university study all cover homelessness. Rank them by potential authority and explain your reasoning.
The university study may rank highest due to academic rigor, the government report for data, and the nonprofit for lived experience. Authority varies by context and need.
You read two opposing sources on food additives. One cites multiple studies but omits dissenting views. The other presents both sides but in less detail. Which is more accurate?
The balanced source is more accurate in representing the issue fairly, even if less detailed. Accuracy isn’t just about data — it’s about fairness too.
A blog post uses humor and memes to criticize a political policy. Another article outlines the same critique with statistics and formal language. How do their purposes and effectiveness differ?
The blog likely aims to entertain and persuade informally, while the article aims to inform and support debate. Both are valid but serve different purposes and audiences.
You find a 2022 source that is highly detailed but hasn’t been updated. A 2025 source is brief but links to daily updates. Which is more current, and how might you use both?
The 2025 source is more current for events, but the 2022 source may still offer essential depth. Use the newer one for updates, the older for foundation.
You’re studying how news media frames protests. One article is from a mainstream outlet; another is from a grassroots blog. Both describe the same protest differently. How do you assess relevance and bias?
Both are relevant but may reflect different agendas. Comparing them helps you analyze how framing shapes public perception — relevance includes perspective diversity.
You compare an op-ed by a Nobel Prize winner and an academic paper by an early-career scholar. How do you evaluate authority when expertise and format differ?
The Nobel winner has personal authority, but the scholar’s work may be more rigorously reviewed. Consider context, publication type, and purpose.
Two scientific studies come to different conclusions. One used a small local sample; the other used a large but poorly described sample. Which is more accurate, or how do you determine reliability?
Neither is perfect — accuracy depends on sample quality, methods, and transparency. Look for peer review, limitations, and replication potential.
You’re analyzing climate policy arguments. One report is published by an oil company, the other by an environmental NGO. Both present data. How do you evaluate the purpose behind each?
Both have clear agendas — one to defend industry, the other to push reform. Their purposes are persuasive, so cross-check data and motives before using either.