When researching a topic, it's common to use more than one source. Comparing information across texts means checking where they agree, where they disagree, and what each one adds that the other doesn't. This helps build a more complete and reliable picture than trusting a single source, and can reveal when a source might be incomplete, outdated or biased.
Example
One article says a bridge was built in 1995; another says 1996. Instead of just picking one, a careful reader would note the disagreement and look for a third, more reliable source (like an official record) to confirm the actual date.
Key terms
Corroborate:
To confirm information is accurate by checking it against another source.
Discrepancy:
A difference or disagreement between two sources of information.
Questions
1. Comparing information across texts means:
Reading only one source
Checking where multiple sources agree and disagree
Ignoring all sources
Reading only the title
2. To corroborate information means to:
Ignore it
Confirm it using another source
Delete it
Make it up
3. A discrepancy is:
An agreement between sources
A difference or disagreement between sources
A type of punctuation
A narrative structure
4. Using more than one source when researching mainly helps you:
Get a less reliable picture
Build a more complete and reliable picture
Avoid learning anything
Ignore all facts
5. If two sources disagree on a fact, a careful reader should:
Automatically believe the first one
Investigate further or seek a third source
Ignore both sources
Assume both are equally wrong
6. Comparing sources can reveal that one source is:
Always completely accurate
Possibly incomplete, outdated or biased
Never useful
Always identical to others
7. Noticing what one text adds that another doesn't mainly helps you:
Build a fuller picture of the topic
Ignore new information
Discard both texts
Avoid comparing further
8. One article says a bridge was built in 1995 and another says 1996. This is an example of a:
Corroboration
Discrepancy
A rhetorical question
A metaphor
9. When two sources disagree, a strong next step is to:
Pick whichever sounds more confident
Look for a third, more reliable source
Ignore the topic completely
Assume both are wrong
10. Two sources that both confirm the same fact are said to:
Contradict each other
Corroborate each other
Discredit each other
Ignore each other
11. Comparing texts is especially valuable when researching:
A simple, uncontested fact
A complex or evolving topic
Nothing at all
Only fictional stories
12. If Source A includes a detail Source B leaves out, a careful researcher should:
Ignore Source A's detail entirely
Consider whether it's relevant and check if it's supported elsewhere
Assume Source B is wrong
Discard both sources
13. Which is a benefit of comparing an older and a newer source on the same topic?
Spotting whether information has become outdated
There is no benefit
Older sources are always more accurate
Newer sources are always wrong
14. Comparing information across multiple texts is a core skill for:
Reliable research and informed conclusions
Avoiding all research
Only reading fiction
Ignoring evidence
15. Three sources describe a historical event, but one gives a notably different account from the other two. A careful researcher should:
Automatically trust the outlier source
Investigate why it differs — checking its reliability, date, and possible bias
Ignore all three sources
Average the three accounts mathematically
16. Why might comparing a source's publication date to others be important when discrepancies arise?
Publication dates never matter
Newer information may reflect updated understanding, while older sources may be outdated
Older sources are always more reliable
Dates have no connection to accuracy
17. A student researching a scientific topic finds that most sources agree, but one contradicts them. What's the most careful approach?
Ignore the majority and trust the outlier
Investigate the outlier's credibility and evidence rather than dismissing or accepting it outright
Automatically dismiss the outlier without checking why it differs
Average all sources together
18. Which best explains the value of "triangulating" information across three or more sources?
It guarantees perfect accuracy every time
It increases confidence in a fact when independent sources corroborate it
It is only useful for fictional research
It removes the need for critical thinking
19. A source that consistently disagrees with well-established, corroborated sources on factual matters should be treated with:
Complete trust, no questions asked
Appropriate caution and further scrutiny
Total dismissal without any consideration
Equal weight to unanimous sources
20. The main purpose of comparing information across multiple texts is to:
Reach more reliable, well-supported conclusions than relying on a single source
Make research take much longer for no reason
Always find sources that disagree
Avoid ever reaching a conclusion
Answer key (parent copy)
1. Checking where multiple sources agree and disagree
2. Confirm it using another source
3. A difference or disagreement between sources
4. Build a more complete and reliable picture
5. Investigate further or seek a third source
6. Possibly incomplete, outdated or biased
7. Build a fuller picture of the topic
8. Discrepancy
9. Look for a third, more reliable source
10. Corroborate each other
11. A complex or evolving topic
12. Consider whether it's relevant and check if it's supported elsewhere
13. Spotting whether information has become outdated
14. Reliable research and informed conclusions
15. Investigate why it differs — checking its reliability, date, and possible bias
16. Newer information may reflect updated understanding, while older sources may be outdated
17. Investigate the outlier's credibility and evidence rather than dismissing or accepting it outright
18. It increases confidence in a fact when independent sources corroborate it
19. Appropriate caution and further scrutiny
20. Reach more reliable, well-supported conclusions than relying on a single source