Section 3
Sort & Vet
You've found a source and decided it's worth a real look. Before you use it, figure out what job it's doing. Answer honestly — not what you want it to be, what it actually is.
Question 1
Does this source argue for or against a position on the issue — or does it just explain, without taking a side?
Question 2
Does it hand you a stat, a specific data point, or an example you could use to support your own claim?
Result
Background
This source helps you (and your reader) understand the issue — not argue a point. Log it as Background.
CRAAP check: lean hardest on Currency and Purpose here — is this still accurate, and is it genuinely informational rather than quietly persuasive? Authority and Accuracy are worth a glance, but you're not building your case on this one source.
Result
Evidence
This source gives you data or an example to support your claim. Log it as Evidence.
Trace it back: if this stat or study shows up inside another article, that's someone else's summary — not the source itself. If the article is using it to argue their own point, don't stop at their summary: go find what they actually cited. No exceptions, even for numbers that sound familiar. Couldn't find the original? You can still use it — log it as secondhand and note that you couldn't verify it.
One source, two hats: a study's data is Evidence. If you're also relying on the researchers' own interpretation of what it means, that's Argument. Log it under whichever job you're asking it to do — or both.
CRAAP check: lean hardest on Accuracy and Authority — can this data be verified, and does whoever produced it have real standing to produce it? Check Currency too, especially for studies on fast-moving topics.
Result
Argument
This source takes a position. Log it as Argument — and note which of its three jobs you're using it for:
- Support — backs up your own position
- Explain significance — uses their reasoning to show why your evidence matters
- Argue against — a real counterposition you're responding to
CRAAP check: lean hardest on Purpose and Authority — is this a genuine, serious voice in the debate, worth taking seriously? Check Currency too — is this still part of the live conversation, or has it been abandoned or debunked since?