Two Ghana revision sheets: compare source status before memorizing
A candidate has two fictional revision sheets for police aptitude preparation. One lists an officeholder without a date, copies a number from a police operational-command list and labels it the country's administrative-region total. The other reproduces selected institutional functions from an official Ghana Police page but warns that its current-affairs section has not been updated. A friend argues that because both sheets contain a recognizable government logo, every entry is equally current and that operational regions must be identical to administrative regions. No verified appointment notice or current administrative map is supplied. The candidate has time to retain stable, supported police and constitutional foundations while leaving uncertain dated entries aside. This is a source-evaluation problem, not an invitation to guess an IGP name, a region count or new recruitment conditions.
1. Which claims can safely be retained, and which require separate verification?
Read the worked answer
Retain the supported institutional functions and clearly identified constitutional foundations. The present officeholder requires a dated authoritative appointment source, while an administrative-region count needs the correct current administrative source. A police operational list answers a different organizational question and cannot automatically establish that count.
2. Explain why an official-looking logo is not enough and propose a study record.
Read the worked answer
A logo does not establish when a statement applied, whether it was copied correctly or whether its category matches the question. Record the institution, precise claim, source title, publication/effective date and date checked. Mark unverified current items as unresolved and omit them rather than silently replacing missing evidence with memory.