Ranking Sources for a Straw-Ban Research Task
In a research unit, students must answer: "Should our city ban single-use plastic straws?" They have 45 minutes to select two of four sources and write a 400-word explanation. Source 1 is a 2022 article from a national newspaper summarizing a peer-reviewed ocean-plastics study; it names the study and quotes two researchers. Source 2 is a blog post by a restaurant owner titled "Straw Bans Hurt Small Business," posted in 2018, with no cited data. Source 3 is a 2023 city council meeting agenda listing public comments for and against a straw ordinance; it includes no summary of evidence. Source 4 is a 2021 fact sheet from an environmental advocacy group; it includes a works-cited list but uses emotional photographs and calls opponents "careless." The teacher asks students to rank the sources for answering the research question, not for persuasive power.
1. Rank the four sources from most to least useful for answering the research question, and justify the top two and bottom one. Consider relevance, authority, and evidence, not whether you agree with the source.
Read the worked answer
A defensible ranking is 1, 3, 4, 2. Source 1 is strongest because it is recent (2022), relevant, and transparently summarizes a peer-reviewed study; it names researchers, so a reader can trace the evidence. Source 3 is second for local relevance: a city council agenda shows which arguments and stakeholders are actually in play, though it does not summarize evidence, so it cannot answer the "should" question alone. Source 4 is third: it is relevant and has a works-cited list, but its emotional photographs and "careless" label signal advocacy, so its claims need verification. Source 2 is least useful because it is a 2018 blog post with no cited data; it offers one business owner's perspective, not evidence about citywide effects. Relevance alone does not make a source strong.
2. Source 4 could still be used responsibly in the essay. Describe one specific way to use it and one safeguard you would apply.
Read the worked answer
Use Source 4 as a pointer to evidence, not as proof. For example, a student could write, "An environmental advocacy group argues that straw bans reduce ocean plastic, citing a specific study; because the group campaigns on this issue, I checked the cited study and used its findings rather than the group's photographs or labels." The safeguard is to trace every factual claim to the works-cited list and to label the group's position as advocacy. This preserves the source's useful citations while preventing the essay from borrowing its emotional framing. A second safeguard is to balance it with Source 1 or local data. The key distinction is between using a biased source as a claim to investigate and using it as neutral authority.
3. What two pieces of information would most strengthen Source 2 without changing its point of view? Explain why each matters.
Read the worked answer
First, Source 2 needs local data: for example, the number of straws a specific restaurant used before a ban, the cost of alternative straws, or sales data before and after a nearby city's ordinance. This matters because the blog's claim is about small-business harm, which is an empirical claim that anecdotes cannot establish. Second, it needs a date and method: when the data were collected, which businesses were included, and how they were chosen. A 2018 post may be outdated if straw prices or rules have changed. Adding a named author and links to receipts or surveys would also help, but the two essential additions are relevant numbers and a transparent method. These would let a reader judge whether the restaurant's experience is typical.