When creating an argument or analyzing an argument, the presence of evidence is not enough:

Verlinden’s Tests of Evidence

When creating an argument or analyzing an argument, the presence of evidence is not enough: One must analyze the strength and validity of the evidence. Whenever you look at any piece of evidence or citation, consider the following six areas when evaluating a source (Verlinden, 2005):

Source Credibility

– Does source have the appropriate background?

– Does the source have the required knowledge?

– Does the source have sufficient expertise?

Source Bias

-Does the source represent a particular interest or perspective?

-Does the source claim objectivity?

-Does the source have preconceived ideas that may color their judgment?

-What “invisible” biases might exist (how does culture or upbringing influence it)?

Recency

-Does the evidence come from the appropriate time period?

Internal Consistency

-Are there any contradictory statements in the source?

Completeness

-Is enough information provided?

-Does the original source provide some background information?

Corroboration (a.k.a. external consistency)

-Do other qualified sources agree with the evidence?

Source: Verlinden, J. (2005) Critical Thinking and Everyday Argument. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth

The CRAAP Test

The CRAAP test is a handy acronym you can use to evaluate websites or other sources:

-Currency: Similar to the recency test from Verlinden, is the source current (where appropriate)

-Relevance: How closely tied to your subject is this source? Is it tangential or not?

-Authority: Is the source qualified to speak/write on this topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service)? (similar to “source credibility” from Verlinden)

-Accuracy: How reliable and truthful is this information? (This combines internal and external consistency from Verlinden)

-Purpose: Why does this source exist in the first place? What’s the motivation behind it?