Watson Evaluating Source Credibility — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A pharmaceutical company publishes a study showing its new drug reduces cholesterol by 40%. Which factor most directly undermines the credibility of this source?
- The study was published in a peer-reviewed journal
- The company has a direct financial interest in the drug's success (Correct answer)
- The study involved 500 participants over 12 months
- The drug was approved for testing by a regulatory body
Correct answer: The company has a direct financial interest in the drug's success
A source with a financial stake in the outcome has a conflict of interest that can bias research design, data selection, or reporting — even when a study appears rigorous. This is one of the most significant credibility concerns in evidence evaluation.
Question 2: Which source would be MOST credible when evaluating claims about the long-term safety of a new industrial chemical?
- A press release from the manufacturer seeking regulatory approval
- A blog post by a retired chemist who opposes industrial regulation
- An independent peer-reviewed study by university toxicologists with no industry funding (Correct answer)
- A documentary produced by an environmental advocacy group
Correct answer: An independent peer-reviewed study by university toxicologists with no industry funding
Independence from financial interest, relevant expertise, and peer review are the three pillars of source credibility. Option C satisfies all three: the researchers have no financial stake, have relevant scientific credentials, and their work has been evaluated by other experts.
Question 3: A city council member argues a new highway will reduce commute times, citing a study funded by the construction company that will build it. What is the PRIMARY credibility concern?
- City council members lack expertise in traffic engineering
- The study may have been designed or reported to favor the funder's interests (Correct answer)
- Commute time data is inherently difficult to measure accurately
- The construction company may not complete the project on schedule
Correct answer: The study may have been designed or reported to favor the funder's interests
When a study is funded by a party that benefits from a particular result, there is a structural incentive to design methodology, select data, or frame conclusions in favorable ways. This conflict of interest is the core credibility issue here.
Question 4: A health magazine claims a specific berry improves memory, citing 'recent research.' Which question is MOST important for assessing this claim's credibility?
- How widely available is the berry in supermarkets?
- What is the berry's nutritional profile?
- Was the research peer-reviewed, and what was the sample size? (Correct answer)
- Has the magazine published similar health claims before?
Correct answer: Was the research peer-reviewed, and what was the sample size?
Vague references to 'recent research' without details about peer review or study scale are a credibility red flag. Peer review establishes that independent experts evaluated the methodology, and sample size affects whether conclusions can be generalized.
Question 5: Two witnesses describe a car accident differently. Witness A is a trained traffic officer standing five metres away. Witness B is a pedestrian 200 metres away wearing headphones. Whose account is more credible?
- Witness B, because bystanders have no reason to be biased
- Witness A, because law enforcement officers are never mistaken
- Witness A, because professional training and proximity improve observational accuracy (Correct answer)
- Neither, because all eyewitness accounts are equally unreliable
Correct answer: Witness A, because professional training and proximity improve observational accuracy
Credibility depends on conditions of observation and relevant expertise. Witness A's proximity eliminated distance distortion, and professional training in traffic assessment improves the ability to interpret what is observed. No witness is infallible, but these factors make Witness A's account more reliable.
Question 6: A nutritionist concludes that a low-carb diet causes significant long-term weight loss based on a two-week study of 15 volunteers. A critic argues the sample is too small and the period too short. The critic is questioning which aspect of source credibility?
- The nutritionist's academic qualifications
- Whether the study was funded by a diet company
- Whether the evidence base is robust enough to support the conclusion drawn (Correct answer)
- Whether the study was published in the right journal
Correct answer: Whether the evidence base is robust enough to support the conclusion drawn
Sample size and study duration determine whether findings can be legitimately generalized. A small, brief study lacks statistical power and cannot capture long-term effects — so the issue is evidentiary adequacy, not credentials or funding.
