Question

dimitri is watching the news and finds out that there is a zika outbreak in his community. he is worried it might affect his family, so he decides to conduct some research about it online. he finds two sources, but he wants to ensure that he focuses on the one that is more reliable.
source a:
title: \why you should be worried about zika\
date: july 2017
author: none given
website: www.zikaoutbreakz.com
source b:
title: \about zika\
date: april 2016
author: centers for disease control and prevention
website: www.cdc.gov/zika
which source should dimitri rely on, and why? check all that apply.

• source a, because there is no author given.
• source a, because the title indicates the article will contain the information he is looking for.
• source a, because it was published more recently.
• source b, because it was published on a government website.
• source b, because it was written by an expert on infectious diseases.

Explanation:

• For "Source A, because there is no author given": Not reliable as no author means less accountability, so eliminate.
• For "Source A, because the title indicates the article will contain the information he is looking for": Title relevance doesn't ensure reliability, and Source A has no author, so eliminate.
• For "Source A, because it was published more recently": Recency alone isn't enough; Source A's lack of author and non - government site make it less reliable, so eliminate.
• For "Source B, because it was published on a government website": Government websites (like CDC.gov) are generally reliable for health information as they follow strict standards and have expert input.
• For "Source B, because it was written by an expert on infectious diseases": The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (author of Source B) consists of experts in infectious diseases, so this is a valid reason for reliability.

Answer:

D. Source B, because it was published on a government website.
E. Source B, because it was written by an expert on infectious diseases.