Reading a Source Critically in Social Studies
A student is writing about a city's decision to build a new tram line. She finds three sources. Source 1 is a city government press release stating the tram "will reduce traffic congestion by 30 percent." Source 2 is a university study finding that tram ridership rose 12 percent in the first year but that car traffic on parallel streets fell only 3 percent. Source 3 is a letter from a local business owner who opposes the tram, saying construction "destroyed" his sales for eight months. The assignment asks her to evaluate the reliability and purpose of each source and to write a balanced claim about the tram's effects.
1. Assess each source's purpose and likely reliability for the question of whether the tram reduced traffic.
Read the worked answer
Source 1 is a government press release. Its purpose is to promote and justify a public project, so it has an interest in favorable framing. The "30 percent" figure is presented without method or time frame, which makes it hard to verify. It is useful as a statement of official claims but weak as evidence of actual effect.
Source 2 is a university study. Its purpose is analysis, and it reports specific, modest numbers: ridership up 12 percent, parallel-street traffic down 3 percent. Specific figures and an apparent research method make it more reliable for the traffic question, though the student should check sample and duration.
Source 3 is an opinion letter from an affected business owner. Its purpose is persuasion and it uses loaded language ("destroyed"). It is valuable as evidence of local economic experience but not as a measure of citywide traffic. Reliability depends on the question being asked.
2. Write a balanced claim the student could defend, and explain how she should handle the conflict between sources.
Read the worked answer
A defensible claim: "The tram appears to have increased ridership substantially while producing only a small reduction in car traffic on parallel streets, and it imposed real short-term costs on some nearby businesses." This claim draws on Source 2's specific figures and acknowledges Source 3's experience without adopting its exaggeration.
The student should not simply average the sources or pick the most dramatic number. She should weigh them by purpose and method: prefer the study's measured figures for the traffic question, cite the press release only as the city's stated goal, and use the business letter as evidence of distributional costs rather than as proof the project failed. Handling conflict means explaining why sources differ (different purposes, measures, and time frames) and letting the strongest evidence carry the central claim while noting uncertainty. That is more persuasive than a one-sided conclusion.