Evaluating Evidence

Evaluating Evidence - Timely Relevant Credible Who funds...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Timely Relevant Credible Who funds the study How many items/cases/people included People: diverse v. homogenous population, how were they selected Numbers need to be interpreted: What do they mean? Suggest for the future? Compare? Statistical significance Humanize the data Evoke emotions Interest audience / connect with audience values Ethics: select a representative example, not just the extreme or rare case Example is comparable/relevant to point Background check of credentials, affiliations Bias (religious, political, personal) Conflicts of interest (ex. financial gain) Qualified for the specific topic (ex. Tax lawyer knows little about defending a convicted murderer on appeal) Ethics: a respected and representative expert, not a renegade who rejects widely accepted view Evaluate credibility of authors and publications Philadelphia Inquirer v. Daily News U.S. News & World Report v. People National Inquirer v. New York Times Wikipedia v. Bartleby.com Meet the Press v. The O’Reilly Factor v. The Daily Show/The Colbert Report ...
View Full Document

  • Spring '10
  • Travers
  • Rhetoric, representative, v. homogenous population, publications Philadelphia Inquirer, People National Inquirer, data Evoke emotions, audience values Ethics

Page1 / 5

Evaluating Evidence - Timely Relevant Credible Who funds...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 5. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online