Answer Key

The FFF and the author don't appear to be experts on the drinking age. They appear to have information about a lot of different things on their website. The author in particular writes about a lot of different subjects.
We're going to have to hold off on accuracy again, we just don't know enough yet.
The FFF and the author clearly have an agenda. They want fewer laws in general including a lower drinking age.
The author cites some sources, but gives a lot more information than he cites sources for.
My answer - useful for some things but not a high quality information source.

The authors are listed at the top of the site and all are experts in alcohol abuse. The NIH can be considered an authority on alcohol as well.
This is a good site to start testing the other two against since we know that the authors are experts we can assume that it's accurate. Since this is a scholarly paper and we're in junior high it's ok to read the introduction and the conclusion and skip the heavy stuff in between. If there's a section that looks interesting feel free to go for it though!
The authors have an argument, but it's well supported with scholarly research so it's ok.
There are a lot of sources listed and the sources are also scholarly sources
My answer - a high quality information source.

The Centers for Disease Control can safely be considered an authority on alcohol and public health.
This information is starting to sync up with stuff we've already read. This is a good sign both for this source and the sources we've reserved judgement on.
Again, the CDC clearly has a position but it's supported by an authority so they're allowed.
There are lots of sources listed and several ways to contact the CDC.
My answer - a high quality information source

Patheos could be considered an authority on some things, but I'm not so sure about the drinking age. Also the author is not listed, and the language is "informal".
The information on this site agrees on a few points with what we've already read, but it disagrees on a lot more points. The publication date isn't too old, but it doesn't look like the article has been reviewed recently. The article does seem to contradict itself by claiming that there is only one reason the drinking age is 21 and then giving two reasons.
The author and website do seem to have a bias. They clearly created this site to express personal viewpoints on a variety of topics.
There are no sources listed and no clear way to contact the author other than through posting a comment.
My answer - useful for some things but not a quality information source

Mental floss isn't really considered to be an authority on any one thing, they're more of a general purpose site. An author is listed but he seems to write on a wide range of issues, which means he's probably not an authority.
Most of the information in this article is starting to sound familiar which is a good sign for the new bits of information. The article is getting kind of old however (2008).
It doesn't seem like the author has a definite position, much less a bias.
There are no sources listed and no clear way to contact the author other than by posting a comment.
My answer - useful for some things but in the grey area for an information source. It would depend on what you needed a source for.

The Flagstaff-Grand Canyon Ale Trail may be an authority on "ale" but probably not on the drinking age. There is not an author listed.
Almost all of this information sounds familiar. The post is pretty recent (within the last year).
The author is clearly trying to sell something on this cite, but not with this article.
There are no sources listed and no clear way to contact the author.
My answer - a fun read, but not a high quality information source.

Videos

This video was created by Fox News - again not really an authority on one thing and posted by NYRA that is a youth rights activist.
Some of this information sounds familiar, however some of the information isn't directly about the legal drinking age.
NYRA has a bias, their goal is for youth to have more rights no matter what.
There are a few sources mentioned but most of them would be hard to check.
My answer - useful for some things, but we'd want to make sure to cross reference anything we use from it.

ReasonTV is an authority on libertarian views, but not an authority on any one thing.
This is about a single town therefore a lot of this is new information.
They clearly have a bias but they're trying to present it in a scholarly way.
Some sources are given but some would be hard to check.
My answer - useful for some things, but we'd want to make sure to cross reference anteing we use from it.

DNews is a news agency - again not really an authority on one thing.
Despite being "informal" this video cites scholarly sources and for the rest of their information it's very similar to the rest of what we've read.
The hosts don't seem to have a bias even though they offered opinions, they're using studies that could argue for each position.
The hosts do cite their sources, and most of them could be checked pretty easily.
My answer - for many things this would be a quality information source but there are just as many situations that it would be better to use the sources that the hosts cited.

CBS is a news agency, they're not an authority on any one thing but they are a respected news source.
Again, CBS is trying to present both sides of the argument. It is a very recent video.
The reporter doesn't seem to have an opinion, much less a bias.
Very few sources are given.
My answer - there really isn't much information in this video therefore I'm not sure I can make a judgement one way or the other.

The C.A.R.S. Checklist was developed by Dr. Robert Harris.Harris, R. (2013, December 27). Evaluating Internet research sources. Retrieved from http://www.virtualsalt.com/evalu8it.htm
A Student friendly handout was developed by Andy SpinksSpinks, A (). C.A.R.S. Checklist for Evaluating Internet Sources. Retrieved from http://andyspinks.com/evaluating-websites/

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse