Week 9 · Chapter

Chapter 9 — Research: Finding & Evaluating Sources

English Composition Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~40–50 minutes · Objective 5 (find, evaluate, and integrate credible sources: turn a topic into a research question, classify sources, judge credibility by lateral reading and a checklist, and quote, paraphrase, summarize, and synthesize with signal phrases and attribution — never patchwriting, never plagiarizing, and never trusting an unverified quotation, source, or citation), Objective 1 (analyze the rhetorical situation — writer, audience, purpose, genre, and context — and approach writing as a recursive process of invention, drafting, revision, editing, and reflection, distinguishing revision (re-seeing ideas and structure) from editing (sentences and surface)) · Read it first this week; the lecture, the tutorial, the quiz, and the Writing Studio all build on it.

In plain language

Research starts before you quote anyone: it starts when you decide what you are looking for and whether a source deserves your trust. This week you turn a broad subject into a research question (a focused question that evidence can answer). You sort sources by what they are and who they were written for, and you test each one with a credibility checklist (five questions about how recent, relevant, qualified, accurate, and purposeful a source is). You also learn lateral reading (leaving a website to see what other sources say about it), the habit that professional fact checkers rely on. You practice on the running draft's four real sources about phones in class and on small everyday cases.

Why you already care about this

Your soccer team's group chat has 14 unread messages. One teammate has posted a link with the words "see, I told you." The article says that studying with music on doubles what you remember, and 3 teammates have already replied with a thumbs-up. You have a test in 2 days, so you care whether this is true.

Before you change how you study, you want two answers. Does this article answer the question you actually have? And can you trust it? You might check who wrote it, when, and why. You might notice that the site sells a study-music app. That small pause before you share or act is research in miniature.

This chapter turns that pause into a method. You will use it on every source you bring into an essay, starting with the running draft's.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

turn a topic into a focused research question that evidence can answer;
sort a source as primary or secondary, and as scholarly, popular, or trade;
explain why a library database and the open web give you different kinds of results;
run the five-question credibility checklist on a real source;
read a website laterally and explain what that told you that vertical reading could not;
check a chatbot's claims about a source before you rely on them.

Carry this sentence with you: judge the source by what others say, not by what it says about itself.

Where we are

Already covered: Week 1, The Writing Process & the Rhetorical Situation, gave you the five questions: writer, audience, purpose, genre, and context. Week 2, Critical Reading: Summary & Response, taught you to tell a claim from its support. Week 4, Thesis & Essay Structure, turned the running draft's topic into a working thesis. Week 7, Argument: Claims, Evidence & Warrants, named the draft's grounds. Week 8, Midterm Review & Exam, added the three-sentence habit.
This week: finding and judging sources: the research question, primary and secondary sources, scholarly, popular, and trade sources, library databases and the open web, the credibility checklist, lateral reading, bias, and a chatbot's claims about a source.
How they connect: last week you kept what a text says, how it persuades, and whether you agree in three separate sentences. This week the text in front of you is a source you might use, so you add a question that comes first: should you use it at all?
Where we're going next: Week 10, Integrating Sources: Quoting, Paraphrasing & Avoiding Plagiarism, brings the sources you choose this week into your own sentences.

Three earlier ideas carry this chapter. From Week 1, every text has a writer, an audience, and a purpose; a source is no different, and its purpose is one of the five checklist questions. From Week 7, the grounds are the evidence an argument points to. The running draft's grounds came from research on schools that banned phones, and this week you find and judge that research yourself. From Week 8, the three-sentence habit keeps "I agree with this site" from standing in for an evaluation. A source you agree with still has to pass the checklist.

1. Turn a topic into a research question

Picture a librarian asking you, "What are you looking for?" If you answer "phones," you will get a shelf of books on everything from phone design to phone bills. If you answer with a question, you get a short list of sources that can help.

A topic names a subject and asks nothing. A research question is a focused question that evidence can answer, that asks more than a trivial yes or no, and that is arguable enough to lead to a thesis. A good research question tells you what to search for and what to skip.

The test has four parts. Is it focused, so one essay can answer it? Is it answerable with evidence, so studies or reports could settle it? Is it more than a yes or no that a glance could answer? And could reasonable people answer it differently, so it can lead to a thesis?

Worked example — the running draft's topic becomes a question. The question versions are illustrative, written for this course and attributed to no one.

Topic: "our college's phone policy in lecture classes". It names a subject and asks nothing a source could answer.
Too broad: "How do phones affect education?" It covers every grade, every device habit, and every subject, so no essay can answer it.
Trivial yes or no: "Do students bring phones to lecture?" You can answer it by looking around the room, so it leads to no thesis.
Research question: "When schools restrict phones during class, what happens to students' learning, and which students gain the most?" It is focused (restrictions during class), answerable with evidence (studies and reports), more than a yes or no (it asks what happens and to whom), and arguable enough to lead to the running draft's working thesis.

In words: the question narrowed the subject to one decision and asked who it helps, so it tells you exactly which studies to look for.

The same move works anywhere. A volunteer at a community library might start with the topic "library hours" and arrive at "Would a later weeknight closing time change who uses the library, and how much?" That question points to sign-in counts and patron surveys, not to every article about libraries.

Misconception check — searching on a topic. Students often think a topic is enough to start searching, and that the question will appear once the sources pile up. It is tempting because a topic is easy to type into a search bar. But a topic returns everything, and you end up reading sources that answer questions you never had. The cure is to write the question first, then search for its key words.

Pause and think. Choose one of these two options.

(a) write a topic you care about from work, a hobby, or your neighborhood, then turn it into a research question that passes all four parts of the test.
(b) take the trivial question "Do people use the bus stop near my home?" and rewrite it as a research question that evidence could answer.

2. Sort sources by what they are: primary vs. secondary

Think about a concert. The recording of the show is the thing itself. A review of the concert in a newspaper is writing about it. Both are useful, but they do different jobs.

A primary source is the thing itself that a writer studies: an original study, a speech, a law, or a set of official guidance. A secondary source is writing about the thing itself, such as a news report on a study or a book that discusses many studies.

Here is the part that surprises people. The same item can be either, depending on how you use it. Eisenhower's farewell address from 1961 is a primary source if you study the address. A historian's article about the address is secondary. But that same article becomes primary if your research question is how historians have written about the address.

Worked example — one news story, two roles. The running draft's mini-source set includes a news article: Jeff Amy, "A Majority of U.S. States Now Have Laws Banning or Regulating Cellphones in Schools", published by PBS News on 21 May 2025. The news article is secondary when you want the research and the laws it reports. It would be primary if your research question were how news outlets covered the new state laws. Same article, same words; only your question changed.

In words: primary and secondary describe the job a source does in your project, not a label stamped on it.

Misconception check — primary means better. Students often think a primary source is always the better source. It is tempting because "primary" sounds like "first-rate." But a primary study can be narrow or dated, and a good secondary source can sum up many studies at once. The cure is to ask what job you need done: the original evidence, or someone's account of it.

3. Sort sources by who they are written for: scholarly, popular, trade

A cardiologist reading a medical journal, a parent reading a health magazine in a waiting room, and a hospital purchasing manager reading a supply-chain magazine are all reading about heart care. Each publication is written for a different reader, and that changes what it includes.

A scholarly source is written by specialists for specialists and passes peer review before it is published. Peer review is the check in which other experts in the field read the work and judge its methods and claims.
A popular source is edited for general readers, such as a news article, a magazine feature, or a book written for the public.
A trade source is written for people who work in one field, such as a magazine for school leaders, and reports practical news and practices in that field.

None of these labels means good or bad. Each tells you what kind of evidence you are holding. A scholarly article shows its methods; a popular article explains findings in plain words; a trade magazine tells you what people in a field are trying.

Worked example — the mini-source set, sorted by audience. The running draft's peer-reviewed article is Louis-Philippe Beland and Richard Murphy, "Ill Communication: Technology, Distraction & Student Performance", in the journal Labour Economics (2016). It is scholarly. The news article by Amy is popular. The book, Nicholas Carr's The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, in its tenth-anniversary edition (2020), is popular too: it is written for general readers. The fourth source, the Department for Education's "Mobile Phones in Schools" page on GOV.UK, is neither scholarly nor popular: it is an official document.

The count: 1 scholarly + 2 popular + 1 government document = 4 sources.

In words: one source shows its methods to experts, two explain ideas to the public, and one states official guidance, so each can carry a different part of the draft.

Misconception check — scholarly means always right. Students often think a peer-reviewed article settles a question. It is tempting because peer review sounds like a guarantee. But peer review is a check, not a verdict: one study can be narrow, and later studies can disagree. The cure is to treat a scholarly source as strong evidence about what it studied, and to see whether other studies agree.

4. Know where you are searching: library databases vs. the open web

Imagine two stores. One sells only items its buyers have inspected. The other is a giant flea market where anyone can rent a table. You can find treasures in both, but you shop differently.

A library database is a searchable collection, reached through a library, that screens what it indexes, so its results are already a filtered set of sources such as journal articles. The open web is everything a general search engine can reach. It is unfiltered: anyone can publish there, and pages are ranked by many signals rather than by how credible they are.

That ranking matters. The top result is the most optimized page, not the most credible one. A page can climb to the top because its owner paid for an ad, used popular search words, or got many clicks.

Worked example — where the running draft's sources were found. You reach the Beland and Murphy article through a library database, and you find Carr's book through the library catalog. You found the news article and the guidance page on the open web. The count: 2 from the library (database or catalog) + 2 from the open web = 4 sources.

In words: half the draft's sources came through the library's filter and half did not, so the open-web half needs the closest checking.

In practice (your tools). Your library's website has a search box for its databases. Type your research question's key words, not the whole question: for the running draft, try "phone ban" and "student performance". Then look for a filter labelled "peer reviewed" or "scholarly journals" and select it. Open the record for any promising article and read its abstract, the short summary at the top, before you decide to read the whole thing.

Misconception check — the top result is the best. Students often think the first search result is the most credible, because the search engine must have ranked it for a reason. It is tempting because the ranking looks like a judgment. But rank reflects optimization, not truth. The cure is to judge every result with the checklist in the next section, whatever its rank.

5. Run the five-question credibility checklist

When you hire someone to fix a car, you might ask how long they have done it, whether they work on your model, and whether others recommend them. You are running a checklist without naming it. A source deserves the same questions.

The credibility checklist is a five-question test for judging a source: currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose. The version taught here is the CRAAP test, named for the first letters of the five questions, from Blakeslee (2004), "The CRAAP Test". It is one common checklist among several, and like every model in this course it is a simplification you can hold in one hand.

Currency is the checklist question about how recent a source is and whether its date matters for your research question.
Relevance is the checklist question about whether a source actually answers your research question, or only part of it.
Authority is the checklist question about who made a source and what qualifies them to speak on the subject.
Accuracy is the checklist question about whether a source's claims can be cross-checked against other sources and hold up.
Purpose is the question you met in Week 1, now asked of a source: why does it exist? To inform, to persuade, to sell, or to direct.

Worked example — the five questions on the news article. Each answer follows the checklist's order.

Currency: it reports recent state laws, so its date matters.
Relevance: it covers schools, not college lecture halls, so it fits only part of the question.
Authority: it carries a named reporter and a named news outlet.
Accuracy: you can cross-check the laws it reports against other news reports and the states' own pages.
Purpose: it exists to inform.

Worked example — the five questions on the peer-reviewed article. The same five questions, asked of the scholarly source.

Currency: it appeared in 2016, so you ask whether newer studies agree.
Relevance: it studied schools in four English cities, not college lectures, which is the gap the running draft's critics will name.
Authority: two researchers, in a journal where experts review the work before it is published.
Accuracy: its methods are published for other experts to check.
Purpose: it exists to report a study.

In words: neither source fails, but both have a relevance gap, and the draft has to admit it. That honesty is part of the draft's ethos.

An honesty note: the checklist gives you questions, not a score. A source can be weak on one question and still be the best evidence you have. Write down the weakness and decide what job the source can still do.

Misconception check — a .org address means trustworthy. Students often think a web address ending in .org, or any official-sounding ending, proves a source is reliable. It is tempting because .org sounds like a nonprofit doing public good. But .org, .com, and .net can be registered by anyone. Only .edu and .gov restrict who may register, so an ending proves nothing about reliability. The cure is to run the five questions on the source itself.

6. Read laterally: leave the site to judge the site

Suppose a stranger at a bus stop tells you a great deal on a used car. You would not judge the deal by asking the stranger how honest they are. You would ask someone else about them. Websites deserve the same treatment.

Vertical reading is judging a website by staying on it and reading its own pages, such as its About page, logo, and design. It tells you only what the site says about itself. Lateral reading is leaving a website and opening new tabs to see what independent sources say about it, so you learn the source's context before you trust its content.

Two reports by Wineburg and McGrew, "Lateral Reading: Reading Less and Learning More When Evaluating Digital Information" (2017) and "Lateral Reading and the Nature of Expertise" (2019), found that professional fact checkers read laterally. Students and historians read vertically and were more often misled. The fact checkers often spent less time on the site itself and reached better judgments, because they found out who was behind it first.

Worked example — one website, read two ways. The website and everything said about it are illustrative, written for this course and attributed to no one.

Vertical reading: a polished page with a .org address, a calm blue logo, and the headline "The Science of Screen-Free Focus" says that any phone in a classroom ruins every student's concentration. Its About page calls it an independent group devoted to student wellbeing. Reading only those pages, the site looks trustworthy.
Lateral reading: you open new tabs and search the site's name with words like "who runs" and "funding". Several independent sources describe the site as the marketing arm of a company that sells lockable phone pouches to schools. The site's context changes how you read its content.

In words: the site's own pages could only praise the site; the new tabs told you who was speaking and why.

In practice (your tools). In your browser, keep the site open and press the keyboard shortcut for a new tab, or use the File menu and choose New Tab. Search the site's name in quotation marks, then add words such as "funding", "who runs", or "review". Read what two or three independent sources say, then return to the original tab with a judgment already in hand.

Misconception check — the About page is lateral reading. Students often think that reading a site's About page counts as checking it from the outside. It is tempting because the About page is where a site explains itself. But a site's About page is still the site talking about itself; that is vertical reading. Lateral reading leaves the site. A slick design is the same trap: polish shows a budget, not reliability.

Pause and think. Choose one of these two options.

(a) pick a website you have used for advice on money, health, or a hobby, and write down the first two searches you would run in a new tab to read it laterally.
(b) recall a time a polished design or a confident tone made you trust a page, and write one sentence on what a lateral check might have shown you.

7. See bias as a purpose, not a verdict

A car commercial wants you to buy the car. You still learn real facts from it, such as the price and the trim levels, as long as you remember why it was made. Sources work the same way.

Bias is a source's point of view and the purpose behind it. Naming it tells you how to read the source; it does not by itself make the source unusable. A source with a point of view can still be accurate; you read it knowing what it wants from you. A source that hides its purpose is the one to worry about.

This is Week 1's rhetorical situation turned toward your sources. Every source has a writer, an audience, and a purpose, and the purpose shapes what it includes and what it leaves out.

Worked example — the illustrative website's purpose. The site's purpose is to sell pouches. That purpose does not make every sentence false, but it explains why the claim is so sweeping. You cross-check the claim against other sources: the peer-reviewed article found a small average gain concentrated among the lowest-achieving students, not ruined concentration for every student.

In words: once you know what the site wanted, you could see that its claim went further than the evidence, and the scholarly source told you how far the evidence actually goes.

Misconception check — bias means throw it out. Students often think any source with a point of view must be dropped. It is tempting because "biased" sounds like "dishonest." But every source is made by someone for some reason, and an argument-driven book or an advocacy group's report can still hold accurate facts. The cure is to name the purpose, cross-check the claims you plan to use, and tell your reader what the source wants.

8. Check the machine: a chatbot's claims about a source

A chatbot can sound like the most confident research assistant you have ever met. Ask it about a website and it will tell you who runs it and how respected it is. Ask it about a study and it will tell you what the study proved.

Those claims are unverified until you check them laterally, the same way you would check a stranger's word about a website. A chatbot can describe a source that does not exist, credit a real source with words it never printed, or stretch a careful finding into a sweeping one.

Worked example — two chatbot claims, checked. The chatbot replies are illustrative, written for this course and attributed to no product.

A chatbot asked about the website calls it "a respected independent nonprofit." That description is unverified. The lateral search you ran is what tells you who runs the site.
A chatbot asked to summarize the peer-reviewed article may say phone bans "raise every student's grades", which stretches a finding about the lowest-achieving students into a claim about everyone. You check the article's own summary, and the finding is narrower.

In words: the chatbot gave you fluent descriptions, and only the sources themselves told you which parts were true.

In practice (your tools). When a chatbot describes a source, paste its description into your word processor and add a comment to each factual claim: who runs it, when it appeared, what it found. Then check each comment in a new browser tab against the source itself or an independent source. Any claim you cannot confirm comes out of your notes.

An honest caveat: a chatbot can still help you brainstorm search words or suggest kinds of sources to look for. The limit is trust. Its suggestions are leads to check, never evidence to cite.

Misconception check — the chatbot already checked it. Students often think a chatbot's description of a source is itself a check, because it sounds so sure. It is tempting because the answer arrives in seconds and in good grammar. But fluency is not verification. The cure is lateral reading: confirm every claim about a source with the source itself or an independent one.

9. Put it together: sort and judge the running draft's four sources

You now have every tool. The last move is to decide what job each of the running draft's four sources can do in the essay.

The mini-source set is the running draft's four real sources: a news article, a peer-reviewed article, a book, and a government guidance page. Here they are, sorted.

The running draft's four sources, sorted by type, audience, and where they were found
Source	Primary or secondary	Audience	Where it was found
Amy, the news article (PBS News)	Secondary	Popular	Open web
Beland and Murphy, the peer-reviewed article (Labour Economics)	Primary	Scholarly	Library database
Carr, the book (The Shallows, tenth-anniversary edition)	Secondary	Popular	Library catalog
Department for Education, the guidance page (GOV.UK)	Primary	Government document	Open web

The counts: 2 primary + 2 secondary = 4 sources; 1 scholarly + 2 popular + 1 government document = 4 sources; 2 from the library (database or catalog) + 2 from the open web = 4 sources.

Worked example — the five questions on the other two sources. These finish the set.

The guidance page. Currency: the page shows when it was first published and when it was last updated. Relevance: it guides schools in England, not U.S. colleges. Authority: the government department responsible for schools there. Accuracy: it states official guidance, so it is accurate about what the guidance says. Purpose: it exists to direct schools.
The book. Currency: the tenth-anniversary edition came out in 2020. Relevance: it discusses how the internet shapes attention in general, so it is background, not proof. Authority: a named author with a named publisher. Accuracy: you check what it reports against the studies it draws on. Purpose: its subtitle announces a point of view, so it exists to persuade as well as to inform.

The decision. The peer-reviewed article can carry the draft's main grounds; the guidance page shows that governments act on the idea; the news article shows how widespread restrictions have become; the book supplies background on attention. The illustrative website earns no place in the essay.

In words: a topic became a question a source can answer, four sources became four labelled tools, and one slick website lost its place once you read about it instead of reading it. A reader of the finished essay can now trust that every source was chosen for the job it can do.

A limitation to keep in view: four sources is the size of this course's model, not a target. More sources do not make a better argument; credible, relevant sources do.

Misconception check — more sources, better argument. Students often think a longer list of sources proves more research and makes a stronger case. It is tempting because a long list looks thorough. But five weak sources add nothing that one strong one cannot carry, and they bury the evidence that matters. The cure is to give each source a job; a source with no job leaves the list.

Pause and think. Choose one of these two options.

(a) name the one source in the mini-source set you would trust most for the draft's main grounds, and give one checklist question that backs your choice.
(b) name the one source you would trust least for those grounds, and say what job it could still do in the essay.

Key terms

research question — A focused question that evidence can answer, that asks more than a trivial yes or no, and that is arguable enough to lead to a thesis. (first used: 1. Turn a topic into a research question)
primary source — The thing itself that a writer studies: an original study, a speech, a law, or a set of official guidance; whether an item counts as primary depends on how the writer uses it. (first used: 2. Sort sources by what they are: primary vs. secondary)
secondary source — Writing about the thing itself, such as a news report on a study or a book that discusses many studies; the same item can be secondary for one research question and primary for another. (first used: 2. Sort sources by what they are: primary vs. secondary)
scholarly source — A source written by specialists for specialists that passes peer review before it is published, such as an article in a research journal. (first used: 3. Sort sources by who they are written for: scholarly, popular, trade)
peer review — The check a scholarly source passes before publication, in which other experts in the field read the work and judge its methods and claims. (first used: 3. Sort sources by who they are written for: scholarly, popular, trade)
popular source — A source edited for general readers, such as a news article, a magazine feature, or a book written for the public. (first used: 3. Sort sources by who they are written for: scholarly, popular, trade)
trade source — A source written for people who work in one field, such as a magazine for school leaders, that reports practical news and practices in that field. (first used: 3. Sort sources by who they are written for: scholarly, popular, trade)
library database — A searchable collection, reached through a library, that screens what it indexes, so its results are already a filtered set of sources such as journal articles. (first used: 4. Know where you are searching: library databases vs. the open web)
open web — Everything a general search engine can reach; it is unfiltered, because anyone can publish there and pages are ranked by many signals rather than by how credible they are. (first used: 4. Know where you are searching: library databases vs. the open web)
credibility checklist — A five-question test for judging a source: currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose; the version taught here is the CRAAP test, one common checklist among several. (first used: 5. Run the five-question credibility checklist)
currency — The checklist question about how recent a source is and whether its date matters for your research question. (first used: 5. Run the five-question credibility checklist)
relevance — The checklist question about whether a source actually answers your research question, or only part of it. (first used: 5. Run the five-question credibility checklist)
authority — The checklist question about who made a source and what qualifies them to speak on the subject. (first used: 5. Run the five-question credibility checklist)
accuracy — The checklist question about whether a source's claims can be cross-checked against other sources and hold up. (first used: 5. Run the five-question credibility checklist)
domain ending — The last part of a web address, such as .org, .com, .net, .edu, or .gov; only .edu and .gov restrict who may register, so an ending proves nothing about a source's reliability. (first used: 5. Run the five-question credibility checklist)
vertical reading — Judging a website by staying on it and reading its own pages, such as its About page, logo, and design; it tells you only what the site says about itself. (first used: 6. Read laterally: leave the site to judge the site)
lateral reading — Leaving a website and opening new tabs to see what independent sources say about it, so you learn the source's context before you trust its content. (first used: 6. Read laterally: leave the site to judge the site)
bias — A source's point of view and the purpose behind it; naming it tells you how to read the source, and it does not by itself make the source unusable. (first used: 7. See bias as a purpose, not a verdict)
mini-source set — The running draft's four real sources: a news article, a peer-reviewed article, a book, and a government guidance page, each chosen for the job it can do in the essay. (first used: 9. Put it together: sort and judge the running draft's four sources)

Summary

A research question is focused, answerable with evidence, more than a yes or no, and arguable.
Primary is the thing itself; secondary is writing about it; your use decides which.
Scholarly, popular, and trade sources serve different readers; none is good or bad by label.
A library database is pre-screened; the open web is not; rank is not credibility.
The checklist asks about currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose.
A domain ending proves nothing about reliability.
Vertical reading stays on the site; lateral reading leaves it to learn the source's context.
Bias is a purpose to name, not an automatic reason to drop a source.
A chatbot's claims about a source are unverified until you check them laterally.
Give every source a job; a source with no job leaves the list.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

A volunteer at a neighborhood food pantry is starting a research project. Label each illustrative question. Is it too broad, a trivial yes or no, or a research question? (a) "Does the pantry open on weekends?" (b) "What causes hunger?" (c) "Would adding evening pickup hours change how many working parents use the pantry, and what would it cost in volunteer time?"
A student is researching a city's new protected bike lanes. Label each illustrative source primary or secondary. Then label it scholarly, popular, or neither. (a) The city council's minutes from the meeting where the lanes were approved. (b) A newspaper column that sums up the debate. (c) A peer-reviewed study of crash reports before and after the lanes were built. Then say when (b) would become a primary source.
A job seeker finds an ad offering high pay for easy work from home and wants to check the company. Sort each illustrative move. Is it vertical or lateral reading? (a) Reading the testimonials page on the company's site. (b) Searching the company's name with the word "complaints" in a new tab. (c) Noticing that the logo looks professional. (d) Looking for news reports about the company on other sites.
A hiker finds a blog post saying a mountain trail is open. The post is 6 years old, and the trail is the one the hiker plans to walk next month. Which checklist question does the post fail most plainly, and what should the hiker do next?

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

(a) is a trivial yes or no: a glance at the posted hours answers it, so it leads to no thesis. (b) is too broad: it covers every cause in every place, so no essay could answer it. (c) is a research question: it is focused on one change, answerable with sign-in counts and volunteer schedules, more than a yes or no, and arguable, because people could weigh the cost differently. This item catches the habit of searching on a topic or a quick fact.
(a) is primary, because the minutes record the decision itself; they are neither scholarly nor popular but an official document. (b) is secondary and popular: it is writing about the debate for general readers. (c) is primary and scholarly: it reports an original study and passed peer review. The column in (b) becomes primary if your research question is how local media covered the bike-lane debate. This item catches the idea that primary and secondary are fixed labels.
(a) is vertical: the testimonials are the company talking about itself. (b) is lateral: you left the site to see what others say. (c) is vertical: you judged the site by its own design, and polish shows a budget, not reliability. (d) is lateral: independent reports tell you the company's context. This item catches the About-page and slick-design traps.
It fails currency most plainly: trail conditions change, and a post that is 6 years old cannot tell the hiker about next month. The hiker should cross-check the claim against other sources, such as the current page of the agency that manages the trail. The post may still be useful for describing the route, which is a relevance question, not a currency one.

Next up in this module: the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, and the quiz — and next week, Integrating Sources: Quoting, Paraphrasing & Avoiding Plagiarism brings the sources you choose into your own sentences with the signal phrase and the cover-the-source test.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com