Lesson 1: Sources: Who's Talking? | Perspective 2 | Phronisis Arguments Playground

Introduction

Find the ground first.

Online, many statements float free of authorship. A viral screenshot can look confident while hiding where it came from. When the foundation is unknown, the whole structure of the argument is weak.

The core question for any online claim: Who is speaking, how do they know, and can someone else check it?

Think of sources like the ground under a building. If the soil is solid, the structure can stand. If the ground is sand, the building sinks. Your job is to find the ground before deciding whether to trust what stands on it.

Source Types

Three types to know

Primary

Direct witness or data

The original record: the hospital report, the study dataset, the eyewitness account, the official document. Strength depends on method and context.

Secondary

Reports about primary

Analysis or reporting about primary sources: a journalist covering a study, an article citing government data. Strength depends on how well the primary source is cited and handled.

Anonymous

Unknown origin

No author, no traceable organisation, no verifiable record. Lowest reliability. Treat with caution until a source can be identified.

This does not mean secondary sources are bad or that primaries are infallible. Methods and context always matter. The point is to know what type of claim you are dealing with before you accept it.

Examples

Three posts, three different grounds

Click each example to reveal the source type and assessment.

🏥"According to hospital records, cases doubled."›

"According to hospital records, cases doubled last month compared to the same period last year."

Type: Primary. Hospital records are direct institutional data. Strong foundation, but you should still check: which hospital, which period, what counting method?

Next step: locate the original records or the official publication that cites them.

📰"A journalist reporting on the hospital data."›

"Health reporter Maria Santos writes that hospital admissions doubled, citing internal records obtained from three regional hospitals."

Type: Secondary. The journalist is analyzing and reporting primary data. Strength depends on whether the primary sources are named, accessible, and whether the reporter's methods are transparent.

Next step: follow the citation to see the original records she references.

📱"An unnamed account says they saw it happen."›

"@truth_watcher99 just posted: 'I personally saw the numbers being changed. Everyone needs to know this.'"

Type: Anonymous. No verifiable identity, no traceable evidence. The account cannot be held accountable. The claim cannot be checked.

Next step: do not share this without independent verification. Treat with caution.

Quick Checks

Test your understanding

Answer each question correctly to unlock the next one.

Q1. A photo with its original metadata intact (date, device, location). What type of source is this?

A Primary: the metadata is direct, traceable evidence attached to the original file.

B Secondary: someone else could have taken the photo on your behalf.

C Anonymous: photos rarely have reliable metadata.

D None of the above. Photos are never sources.

Q2. A blog post that quotes and links to a government report. What type of source is the blog post?

A Primary, because it contains factual information.

B Secondary: it is reporting on and analyzing a primary source.

C Anonymous, because blogs are not always verified.

D Primary, because it links directly to the original document.

Q3. Your friend says "My mum thinks this supplement is the best." Is this a reliable source for a health claim?

A Yes, personal experience counts as primary evidence.

B Yes, if your friend's mum has used the supplement for a long time.

C No. This is an anecdote, not evidence. There is no traceable record, no method, and no way to check the claim.

D Only if combined with other personal testimonies.

Q4. A forwarded message with no author, no date, and no link to original data. What category does this fall into?

A Secondary, because it summarises information from somewhere else.

B Anonymous: no author, no traceable origin, no way to check.

C Primary, because it was written by someone directly involved.

D None of these categories apply to forwarded messages.

Q5. Even primary sources require scrutiny. Which of the following best explains why?

A Primary sources are always biased toward the organisation that produced them.

B Primary sources are too technical to interpret correctly.

C Only peer-reviewed primary sources are valid.

D Methods and context still matter. Even direct data can be flawed, incomplete, or misused outside its original purpose.

Mini-Game

Sort the Sources

Read each post and decide: Primary, Secondary, or Anonymous? Score at least 4 out of 6 to pass.

Progress: 1 / 6 Score: 0

Practice Round

Five more questions

Apply what you have learned. Each question unlocks after the previous answer.

Question 1 of 5

An official Ministry of Health report with named authors and a public registry number. Which is the strongest reason to treat this as credible?

A Government sources are never wrong.

B It is a named, primary source with an accountability trail. Authors can be contacted and the record can be verified independently.

C Ministries produce more content than private organisations.

D It was probably shared widely online.

Question 2 of 5

A screenshot with no attribution circulates on a messaging app. It claims a local hospital is overwhelmed. What should you do first?

A Share it quickly so people can stay safe.

B Check if friends have seen it too.

C Look for the original source. Can you find a named hospital statement, a health authority update, or a named journalist who has verified the claim?

D Trust it because hospitals are typically primary sources.

Question 3 of 5

An article by a named science journalist cites three peer-reviewed studies. Is this a primary or secondary source?

A Primary, because the studies are peer-reviewed.

B Secondary. The article is reporting on and interpreting primary research. The studies themselves are the primary sources.

C Anonymous, because readers cannot access the original studies.

D Both primary and secondary simultaneously.

Question 4 of 5

An article has no author name, no publication date, and no links to its sources. How should you treat its claims?

A Accept them if the writing style sounds professional.

B Accept them if the claims match your existing knowledge.

C With significant caution. The missing accountability markers mean the claims cannot be traced or verified. Look for an independent source before sharing.

D Treat them the same as any named source.

Question 5 of 5

A research preprint has named authors and institutional affiliations but has not yet been peer-reviewed. How would you classify this source?

A Anonymous, because it has not been approved by reviewers.

B Primary with named, accountable authors. The lack of peer review is a limitation to note, not a reason to dismiss it entirely. Treat its claims as preliminary.

C Secondary, because it builds on previous research.

D Fully reliable: named authors equal fully verified claims.

Reflection

Think it through

Think of the last fact you shared, in a conversation, a message, or a post. Who was the actual source? Was it primary, secondary, or anonymous? Would you share it again now?

This is just for you. Nothing is saved or submitted.