Evaluating sources and justifying actions

• Comparing the significance of different implications.
• Considering the likely effectiveness of your proposed actions.
• Commenting on sources — their validity and their bias.

The standard specifies three aspects of validity:

• Currency — how recent is it? A source on a fast-moving topic such as a spreading disease or a new technology can be outdated within a few years. On slower-moving biology, age matters less. Say why currency does or does not matter for your issue, rather than noting a date.
• Peer review status — has it been examined by other scientists before publication? Peer review is not a guarantee of correctness, but it means specialists have checked the methods and reasoning, which filters out much weak work.
• Scientific acceptance — is the claim consistent with the wider body of evidence, or is it an outlier? A single study contradicting a large body of established work is more likely to be wrong than to have overturned it, so a claim gains credibility from replication and convergence with independent lines of evidence.

A useful hierarchy, from stronger to weaker for scientific claims:

• Peer-reviewed research, especially where findings have been replicated.
• Reviews and syntheses by scientific bodies, which weigh many studies together.
• Government and Crown research institute publications, which are generally reliable though they may reflect policy priorities.
• Reputable science journalism, which is secondhand and may simplify or overstate.
• Advocacy organisation material, which may be accurate but selects evidence to support a position.
• Unattributed websites and social media, where there is no accountability for accuracy.

This is a guide, not a rule. A well-sourced advocacy document can be more useful than a poor journal article, and the reason you trust a source matters more than its category.

The standard names attitudes, values and beliefs as sources of bias. Bias is not necessarily dishonesty — it is more often selection: which evidence gets included, which gets omitted, and how it is framed.

Questions to ask:

• Who produced it, and what is their interest? An industry body, an advocacy group, a regulator and a university researcher may all be accurate while emphasising different things.
• Who funded it? Funding does not invalidate research, but it is relevant information and should be disclosed.
• What is omitted? The most effective bias is usually omission rather than falsehood.
• How is it framed? Emotive language, selected images and one-sided case studies signal persuasion rather than description.
• Is uncertainty acknowledged? A source presenting a contested issue as entirely settled is misrepresenting the state of knowledge, whichever side it takes.

Important: a biased source is not automatically useless. An advocacy organisation may present accurate evidence and raise legitimate points. The right response is to use it with the bias identified, and to check its factual claims against an independent source — not to discard it, and not to accept it uncritically.

Apply the same scrutiny to sources you agree with. Examining only the other side's sources is itself a bias, and a marker will notice it.

Not all implications matter equally, and saying which matter more — with reasons — is analysis.

Useful criteria for weighing them:

• Reversibility. Can the outcome be undone? Extinction cannot. An irreversible harm generally weighs more heavily than a reversible one of similar size.
• Scale. How many organisms, how large an area, how many people?
• Timeframe. Short-term and temporary, or permanent and compounding?
• Certainty. How confident is the evidence that the outcome would occur?
• Distribution. Who bears the cost, and who receives the benefit?

Comparing on stated criteria is far stronger than asserting that one thing matters more. It also makes your reasoning checkable, which is what allows a marker to judge it.

This is where most responses could be strengthened most, and the standard names it explicitly.

Desirability and effectiveness are different questions. An action can be clearly desirable and still not work.

For each action you propose, ask:

• Would it address the actual cause? An action treating a symptom while the cause continues will not solve the problem. If a pest population recovers from surrounding land, a one-off local cull cannot succeed however well executed.
• Is it achievable? Consider cost, who would have to act, and whether they have the authority and capacity.
• Does it depend on compliance? Actions relying on voluntary behaviour are only as effective as uptake. Hygiene stations work only if used, and only if maintained.
• What is the scale mismatch? A personal action may be right but negligible in effect. Say so honestly — it is more convincing than overstating it, and pairing a personal action with a societal one addresses the gap.
• Are there side effects? An effective action may create new problems, and acknowledging them strengthens the proposal.

An honest assessment of your own proposal is strong evidence for Excellence. Proposing an action, identifying its main limitation, and explaining why you still think it worthwhile shows judgement. Proposing an action and claiming it would simply solve the problem does not.