A Figure for the Bulletin, a Deadline, and Four Conflicting Sources
A first-year student of a Tezpur college is preparing the current-affairs round of the annual quiz. Her slide on a central rural-livelihood scheme must state how many districts it covers. She has four inputs. (i) A Press Information Bureau release dated 12 March says 96 districts. (ii) A national daily of 18 March quotes 'senior officials' saying the scheme now covers 120 districts. (iii) An undated coaching handout says 120 districts. (iv) A forwarded graphic carrying a ministry logo says 250 districts with the caption 'biggest ever'. Her teacher's condition is that any figure on the slide must survive a parent checking it. The quiz is on 5 April and slides are locked on 28 March. The student likes 120 because two of her four inputs agree on it, and argues that agreement proves it is right. She has one free afternoon before the lock date and no budget for subscriptions.
1. Which figure should go on the slide, and in what words? Justify the choice of source, not just the number.
Read the worked answer
Publish 96 districts, attributed and dated: '96 districts, as on 12 March (Press Information Bureau release)'. Add a second line, in smaller type: 'Some press reports of 18 March speak of an expansion to 120 districts; not confirmed in an official release as of 28 March.'
The justification is a source hierarchy, not a preference. The PIB release is primary, official, and dated, so it can be checked by the parent the teacher worries about. The daily is dated and later, which earns it a footnote, but its only attribution is 'senior officials' - unnamed, unquotable, and impossible to verify. The coaching handout has no date and no source, so it cannot be cited at all. The graphic claims a jump from 96 to 250 with no date, no author and an emotive caption, which is the profile of content that travels because it is striking, not because it is checked.
Dating the figure is the real safeguard: a scheme's coverage changes, so '96 districts as on 12 March' stays true even if the number later rises.
2. She has one free afternoon and no money. What single verification step gives the most reliability per hour, and how would it change the slide?
Read the worked answer
Go to the scheme's official portal for the latest release or dashboard, and only then to the district office whose staff administer the scheme.
The portal is the fastest way to close the whole question: if it carries a later official figure, the slide simply updates to that number with the new date, and the 120 claim is either confirmed or quietly dropped. If the portal is stale, the district office is decisive and cheap - the office submits the coverage data, so its monthly report is a primary record, and a phone call or a walk-in costs an afternoon and no subscription. It also produces something better than a citation: a named official and a date.
That step changes the slide in two possible ways. Either the figure becomes the confirmed newer official value, or it stays at 96 with the uncertainty spelled out. Both outcomes are defensible. What the afternoon must not be spent on is searching for more pages repeating 120; repetition is not verification, and it would only strengthen the error she is trying to test.
3. Identify the reasoning flaw in 'two of my four inputs agree, so 120 must be right', and say what evidence would actually have counted as corroboration.
Read the worked answer
The flaw is treating agreement as corroboration when the sources are not independent. An undated handout is very likely copied from the newspaper report - handouts are compiled from clippings - so the two 'sources' may be one source counted twice. Confidence rises only when independent routes reach the same answer; two echoes of the same origin add nothing. The same flaw appears in the phrase 'must be right': agreement raises plausibility, it does not create proof, and here the pair still rests on unnamed officials.
Genuine corroboration would look like this: a later PIB release or a ministry annual report giving 120; a district-level record showing newly added districts whose names can be matched against the 96 of March; or a named official quoted on the record with a date. Any of these would establish both the figure and the date from which it applied. Until one of them arrives, the honest slide carries 96, a date, and a one-line caveat.