21 What does Mia say about using the CRAAP framework?
A It guarantees that a source is trustworthy.
B It should not be applied without critical thinking.
C It replaces the need to analyse context.
22 Why might authority be misleading?
A Experts sometimes exaggerate their qualifications.
B Specialists may comment outside their area of expertise.
C Academic titles are often unclear online.
23 What potential concern do the students identify about Mia’s journal article?
A The data is outdated.
B The peer-review process is unclear.
C The funding source could introduce bias.
24 What problem does Daniel identify in the news article?
A It lacks recent data.
B It is written as an opinion piece.
C It contains factual errors.
Questions 25–27
What criticism do the students make about the blog post?
Choose THREE answers from the list below.
Write the correct letters next to Questions 25–27.
25 ……………………
26 ……………………
27 ……………………
A The author’s identity is unclear.
B The website design looks unprofessional.
C References are not properly cited.
D The information is too technical.
E The site contains commercial advertising.
F The article is too short.
Questions 28–30
Complete the sentences below.
Write ONE WORD ONLY.
The lecturer emphasised the importance of avoiding 28 …………………… bias.
Mia suggests using 29 …………………… reading to check the reliability of online information.
Instead of ranking the sources, the students decide to consider their overall 30 ……………………
Keys
21 B
22 B
23 C
24 B
25-27 IN EITHER ORDER
A
C
E
28 confirmation
29 lateral
30 purpose
Transcripts
Part 3: You will hear two students discussing how to evaluate the credibility of different information sources.
MIA: Daniel, have you finished reading the assignment brief? It’s more detailed than I expected.
DANIEL: Yes. We aren’t just listing good sources. We have to explain how credibility is established and how it can still be misleading.
MIA: The lecturer wants three sources: a peer-reviewed journal article, a news website piece, and a blog post.
DANIEL: And we evaluate them with the CRAAP framework: currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose.
MIA: But she warned us not to use it like a checklist. We need to think critically about context.
DANIEL: I was confused. If a source is recent and written by a professor, isn’t it credible?
MIA: Not necessarily. A specialist can comment outside their field, like a medical doctor writing about climate economics. Authority has to match the topic.
DANIEL: That explains why authority can be misleading.
MIA: My academic source is a 2022 article on misinformation in social media from a well-known communication journal.
DANIEL: Is it peer-reviewed?
MIA: Yes. The journal website explains the review process clearly.
DANIEL: Good. Any conflicts of interest?
MIA: The study was funded by a technology company.
DANIEL: That could introduce bias.
MIA: Possibly, but the authors disclose it and the methods are rigorous. We need evidence of bias, not assumptions.
DANIEL: For the news source, I chose a major international newspaper.
MIA: Sounds reliable.
DANIEL: At first, yes. But it’s an opinion piece, not a news report.
MIA: So the purpose is to persuade.
DANIEL: Exactly. The writer is a columnist, not a subject specialist. It uses statistics but doesn’t link to the original studies, so the accuracy is hard to verify.
MIA: And the blog?
DANIEL: The blog looks professional, but the author uses only a first name.
MIA: So the author’s identity is unclear.
DANIEL: And there’s no affiliation. The references are vague, like experts say, with no citations. Also, the site is commercial and packed with advertising.
MIA: Which suggests profit may be the purpose, even if some independent blogs can be credible with strong evidence.
DANIEL: We also have to present our findings in class.
MIA: Let’s keep it structured. First, define credibility, including reliability, validity, and objectivity. Then explain the criteria and apply them.
DANIEL: Should we analyse each source, then compare?
MIA: Yes. She emphasised synthesis, not description.
DANIEL: She also warned us about confirmation bias.
MIA: Right. We can’t judge a source by whether we agree with it.
DANIEL: She suggested lateral reading for online information, opening new tabs to verify the author and organisation.
MIA: We could show a quick example, but we only have twelve minutes. Also, she told us not to stay on the same page when checking a claim. We should look for independent confirmation, like university profiles, publication records, or fact-checking sites.
DANIEL: And if an article includes images or graphs, we can do a reverse image search to see where they came from.
MIA: Exactly. Even a peer-reviewed paper can be flawed if the data collection isn’t explained clearly, so we should look for methods, limitations, and access to sources.
DANIEL: For academic work, peer review is important.
MIA: And transparency about methods is just as important.
DANIEL: For online sources, traceable references are key.
MIA: Should we rank the three sources at the end?
DANIEL: That seems too simplistic. Credibility depends on purpose.
MIA: Then we’ll conclude by explaining which source fits academic research best, which helps explain public debate, and which needs careful verification.
DANIEL: Great. I’ll put the criteria in a table, and you can prepare the comparison.
MIA: Good idea. We can also prepare a handout with the links to the three sources for the class.
DANIEL: Perfect. Let’s meet at the library cafe at 10 am to finalise everything.
