Escolher entre Duas Fontes Contraditórias
For your Detailed Study you must refer to at least two Portuguese-language sources. You have found three. Source A is a newspaper article stating that youth unemployment fell to 18% last year. Source B is a government statistical bulletin giving the same 18% figure but defining 'youth' as ages 15 to 24 and counting only registered jobseekers. Source C is a blog post claiming unemployment is 'much worse than the official numbers' but citing no data. Your teacher asks you to justify which sources you will use and how, and warns that simply quoting the 18% without comment will limit your marks. You have 250 words of written preparation to submit alongside the oral.
1. Evaluate the three sources and decide which you will use and in what role.
Read the worked answer
I would use Source B as my primary evidence because it is a statistical bulletin with a stated methodology, which makes its definition checkable. Source A is useful but secondary: it reports the same figure while omitting the definition, so I would cite it only to show how media framing can strip away context. Source C I would not use as evidence, though I might mention it as an example of unsupported public discourse - and even then I would say explicitly that it lacks data. The key judgement is that a source is not 'good' or 'bad' in the abstract; its value depends on the claim it is asked to support. For a claim about the labour market, a methodology-bearing bulletin outranks a blog.
2. How would you discuss the 18% figure in the oral so that it demonstrates critical analysis rather than recall?
Read the worked answer
I would unpack the definition rather than repeat the number: 'Dezoito por cento parece baixo, mas este número conta apenas os jovens entre os 15 e os 24 anos que estão inscritos como desempregados.' Then I would draw out the implications: people who have stopped registering, those in informal work, and those studying are excluded, so the figure may understate hardship. I would connect this to Source A's omission of the definition, noting that the same number can create a misleading impression when context is removed. Finally I would state what would change my view - for example, a broader measure including discouraged workers - which shows I understand the evidence is conditional rather than absolute.
3. What would you write in the 250-word preparation to signal source evaluation without wasting the word limit?
Read the worked answer
I would allocate roughly 50 words to stating my topic and position, 100 words to the two sources with their nature and limitation, 60 words to the tension between them, and 40 words to what evidence would strengthen or challenge my view. I would use evaluative vocabulary rather than description: 'fonte oficial com metodologia explícita', 'artigo jornalístico que omite a definição', 'publicação sem dados verificáveis'. I would avoid copying quotations at length, since the preparation is a support document, not the Presentation itself. The aim is that an assessor reading it in 30 seconds can see I have weighed the sources, not merely collected them.