AS91188 Earth and Space Science 2.2 - Issue and Validity of Communicated Information
What this standard tests
AS91188 asks you to examine an Earth and Space Science issue and judge the validity of information communicated about it. You need to separate scientific evidence from values, identify stakeholders, and evaluate whether a claim is supported by the data and sourcing behind it.
Core rules and concepts
- An issue has a scientific component and a social, economic or political component. Do not treat a values disagreement as a scientific uncertainty.
- Validity checks include: relevant expertise, peer review, transparent method, sample size and representativeness, date and location, replication, conflicts of interest, and whether the conclusion actually matches the data.
- Distinguish fact, inference, opinion and prediction. Correlation is not causation; a hazard is not the same as risk; uncertainty is not ignorance.
- Media reports often omit baseline data, sample size, margins of error or the difference between absolute and relative risk. A headline is a claim to test, not evidence.
Worked example
An article says “Local stream nitrate is unsafe - dairy farming to blame”, citing one grab sample and an anonymous source. The concentration claim can be checked against the relevant guideline, but one sample at one flow condition is weak evidence: nitrate varies with rainfall, season and land use. Blaming dairy requires land-use mapping, repeated sampling and possibly isotope tracing to separate fertiliser, sewage and other sources. The article may raise a valid concern, but its causal claim is not validated by the evidence presented. A stronger conclusion is: “The reported concentration warrants investigation; the source attribution is unsupported.”
Traps that cost marks
- Accepting an anecdote or a single measurement as representative.
- Treating peer review as proof rather than a quality filter.
- Confusing scientific consensus with absolute certainty.
- Ignoring the date, scale or location of the evidence.
- Replacing evidence evaluation with personal opinion about the issue.