The Research Process & Evaluating Sources — English

A researchable question is narrow enough to answer with evidence in one paper — it names a specific group, effect, or angle.

Avoid questions answerable with a simple yes/no or a single fact; aim for one that requires analysis.

Explain your reasoning: what did narrowing let you gain?

A stronger research question would be: How does daily use of image-based social media, such as Instagram, affect the body image of teenage girls in the United States?

This is far more researchable than the broad topic “social media.” First, it narrows the subject to a specific platform type, a specific group, and a specific effect, so a writer can find focused studies rather than drowning in everything ever written about social media. Second, it cannot be answered with a simple yes or no — it asks how and how much, which invites the analysis a research paper is built on. A good research question is narrow, specific, and open enough to require real investigation, and this one meets all three tests.

Response criteria

• Provides a focused research question clearly narrower than “social media”
• The question is genuinely researchable (not yes/no, not a single-fact lookup)
• Explains at least two qualities that make it stronger (focus, arguability, specificity)
• Reasoning shows understanding of what a good research question does

Run through the standard credibility checks: Who wrote it? Why? What's their evidence? How current is it?

Watch for signs of a commercial motive or clickbait framing (“shocking truths they don't want you to know”).

End with a verdict — credible, not credible, or usable only with caution — and say why.

This source is not credible for an academic paper, and several criteria point the same way. First, authority: there is no named author and no sign that anyone with expertise in marine biology wrote it, so there is no way to judge the writer's qualifications. Second, purpose and bias: the site exists to sell shark merchandise, and its stated goal is to make people “buy shark stuff” — a commercial motive that gives it reason to exaggerate rather than inform, a suspicion the clickbait title only strengthens. Third, evidence: the article cites no studies or sources, so its claims cannot be verified. Finally, currency: at nine years old, it may miss more recent research.

Taken together, these problems make the page unusable as evidence. At most, it might serve as an example of how sharks are marketed to the public — but not as a factual source on shark behavior.

Response criteria

• Applies at least three distinct credibility criteria to the source
• Identifies specific red flags (no author, commercial purpose, no citations, or outdated)
• Reaches a clear overall judgment about credibility
• Justifies the judgment with the evidence from the description

Ask who funded the source and what outcome would benefit them.

Connect the funding to the report's specific conclusions — does the bias have a plausible influence on what it claims?

Decide how to handle it: ignore it, use it with caution, or check it against independent sources.

The clearest bias here is a conflict of interest: the report was written and paid for by a trade group representing soft-drink manufacturers — the very companies that would lose money if sugary drinks were blamed for childhood weight gain. That funding source doesn't automatically make every fact false, but it gives the authors a strong motive to reach one particular conclusion, and sure enough, the report clears sugary drinks and shifts the blame onto exercise. Because the finding lines up so neatly with the funder's financial interest, I would not treat this report as a neutral, reliable source.

I wouldn't necessarily throw it out entirely — it might show me how the industry frames the issue, or point me toward data I can check — but I would verify any of its claims against independent, peer-reviewed research with no financial stake in the answer. If I cited it at all, I would clearly note who funded it.

Response criteria

• Identifies the specific source of bias (industry funding / conflict of interest)
• Explains how that bias could plausibly shape the report's conclusions
• Reaches a nuanced decision about use (not simply “ignore it”)
• Reasoning goes beyond labeling — it explains the connection between funder and finding

Test each question: Can it be answered with one word, one fact, or an encyclopedia entry? If so, it's too weak.

Strong questions usually ask how, why, or to what extent, and name a specific angle.

Keep the general subject, but sharpen it into something that needs evidence and analysis.

Question 1 (“Are dogs good?”) is a yes/no question, and “good” is too vague to research — good at what, and for whom? Stronger: How does owning a dog affect the physical activity levels of adults over sixty?

Question 2 (“What is World War II?”) is a simple fact-lookup you could answer from one encyclopedia entry, and it is far too broad for a paper. Stronger: How did wartime propaganda posters shape American women's participation in the workforce during World War II?

Question 3 (“Is pollution bad for the environment?”) is both yes/no and so broad the answer is obvious. Stronger: To what extent has reducing single-use plastics measurably improved water quality in urban rivers? Each rewrite names a specific angle and asks how or to what extent, so it demands evidence and analysis rather than a one-word answer.

Response criteria

• Diagnoses the specific flaw in each of the three questions
• Correctly recognizes the yes/no, overly broad, and fact-lookup problems
• Rewrites each into a focused, researchable question
• Rewrites ask for analysis (how/why/to what extent), not a single fact

Compare, don't just praise the winner — line the two up on the same criteria.

Anecdote versus data is the heart of this one: which can support a factual claim?

A weak source isn't always useless — could the comment illustrate something even if it can't prove a fact?

Source B is the far more appropriate source for a paper on the medication's side effects. Compare them on authorship first: Source B is written by three named physicians whose expertise can be checked, while Source A comes from an anonymous username, “TruthSeeker88,” with no credentials at all. Now compare evidence: Source B reports a study of 2,000 patients with a table of documented side-effect rates, whereas Source A offers a single emotional anecdote about one cousin and an unsupported accusation that “doctors are hiding” things. On authorship, on evidence, and on objectivity — B reports measured data while A is driven by anger — Source B wins decisively; it can support a factual claim, and A cannot.

That said, Source A isn't completely useless. It couldn't prove anything about the drug, but it could be quoted as an example of the public fear or distrust surrounding the medication, as long as it is clearly labeled as one person's opinion rather than evidence.

Response criteria

• Selects Source B as the more appropriate academic source
• Compares the two on at least two credibility criteria (authorship, evidence, objectivity)
• Justifies the choice with specifics from each description
• Notes a legitimate but limited use for the weaker source (e.g., as an example of public fear)

Sub-questions divide the big question into parts you can actually investigate one at a time.

Think about different angles: money and fees, customer behavior, the owners' own experience.

Match each sub-question to the source best suited to answer it — data questions need data sources; experience questions need interviews.

Main question: How has the rise of food-delivery apps affected small, independent restaurants?

Sub-question 1: How much of each order do delivery apps take in fees, and how does that compare to a restaurant's profit margin? Source to look for: an industry or business report, or reporting from a business news outlet, that gives fee percentages and margin data.

Sub-question 2: Have delivery apps changed how many customers order in versus dine in at small restaurants? Source to look for: a market-research study or survey data on consumer ordering habits.

Sub-question 3: How do independent restaurant owners themselves describe the effect on their business? Source to look for: interviews with local restaurant owners, or first-person accounts and trade-publication features.

Together these three cover the financial impact, the shift in customer behavior, and the owners' lived experience, which is what the main question is really asking.

Response criteria

• Breaks the main question into three genuine, distinct sub-questions
• Sub-questions together address the main question meaningfully
• Names an appropriate type of source for each sub-question
• Source types fit the sub-questions (e.g., interview for lived experience, report for data)

The test: was the source created at the time by someone directly involved (primary), or created later to analyze the event (secondary)?

A photograph or a letter from the moment is firsthand; a textbook looking back is not.

Primary sources give direct evidence and voice; secondary sources give context and analysis — use each for what it does best.

Source 1, the 1912 worker's letter, is a primary source: it was created at the time by someone who directly experienced the mill, so it is firsthand evidence. Source 3, the 1912 photograph, is also a primary source, for the same reason — it captures the conditions directly, on the spot. Source 2, the 2015 textbook chapter, is a secondary source: it was written a century later by an author who wasn't there and who is summarizing and interpreting what happened.

I would use them differently in my paper. The primary source — the worker's letter — I'd use as direct evidence, quoting her own words to show what the conditions felt like to someone who lived them, which gives the paper authenticity and voice. The secondary source — the textbook — I'd use for context and framing: to explain how common these conditions were across the industry, how they fit into the larger history, and to help me interpret what the letter and photograph reveal.

Response criteria

• Correctly classifies all three (letter = primary, textbook = secondary, photograph = primary)
• Explains the reasoning behind each classification
• Explains a distinct use for a primary source (direct evidence/firsthand voice)
• Explains a distinct use for a secondary source (context, summary, or analysis)