Choose environmental sources and reference them accurately · 选择环境来源并准确引用
A confident headline may not answer your question
- A student wants to reduce disposable cups at a fictional café. A vendor's advertisement promises “the greenest choice,” while the café's own log counts used cups. The sources have different purposes and answer different questions.
- This GAC008-aligned lesson teaches information literacy and accurate citation. The materials below are fictional source cards, not environmental findings about real products. Evaluating sources is part of the argument, not a final decoration after writing.
自信的标题未必回答了你的问题
- 一名学生希望减少一家虚构咖啡馆的一次性杯子使用量。供应商广告承诺“最环保的选择”,而咖啡馆自身的记录统计了用过的杯子数量。两份资料目的不同,回答的问题也不同。
- 本课例符合GAC008标准,教授信息素养与准确引注。下方材料为虚构来源卡片,并非关于真实产品的环境研究成果。评估来源是论证的一部分,而非成文后的点缀。
Match the source to the claim
- First specify the question: “How many disposable cups did this café use, and what should it investigate before changing supplies?” A local log can support a local count. It cannot on its own compare manufacture, washing, transport or disposal impacts.
- Read the cards for authorship, purpose, method and date information. Missing information may limit how you use a source. A commercial interest does not make every statement false, but it makes independent verification of a promotional claim especially important.
Card L: Fictional café operations log, prepared by the shift supervisor for this lesson. It records 120 disposable cups on Monday and 90 on Tuesday. Customer totals and reusable-cup use were not recorded.
Card V: Fictional vendor advertisement. “Our new cup is the greenest choice.” The card supplies no comparison method, defined environmental measure or independently checkable report.
Card M: Fictional research-methods note. A comparison of cup options should define the products, number of uses and relevant production, washing, transport and disposal stages before comparing outcomes. This card supplies a method checklist, not product-specific results.
将来源与主张匹配
- 首先明确问题:“这家咖啡馆使用了多少一次性杯子?更换供应前应调查什么?”本地记录可支持本地计数,但单独无法比较制造、清洗、运输或处置对环境的影响。
- 阅读卡片以确认作者、目的、方法和日期信息。缺失的信息可能限制你对来源的使用。商业利益不代表所有陈述均为虚假,但使推广性声明的独立核实尤为重要。
Card L: Fictional café operations log, prepared by the shift supervisor for this lesson. It records 120 disposable cups on Monday and 90 on Tuesday. Customer totals and reusable-cup use were not recorded.
Card V: Fictional vendor advertisement. “Our new cup is the greenest choice.” The card supplies no comparison method, defined environmental measure or independently checkable report.
Card M: Fictional research-methods note. A comparison of cup options should define the products, number of uses and relevant production, washing, transport and disposal stages before comparing outcomes. This card supplies a method checklist, not product-specific results.
By how many cups did recorded disposable use fall? · 记录的纸杯使用量减少了多少杯?
120 − 90 = 30. No customer counts were recorded. · 120 − 90 = 30。未记录顾客人数。
Evaluate relevance and evidence separately
- L directly supports a 30-cup fall between the two days. Without customer totals, it cannot show a per-customer reduction; without other days, it cannot establish a lasting trend. V is relevant to a product proposal but does not support its superlative.
- M helps plan a wider comparison but gives no winner. Ask what measure “greenest” means and request a retrievable report with assumptions. Do not replace missing evidence with an invented percentage reduction or a claim that every reusable product is always preferable.
Claim audit: “Disposable use fell by 30 cups” → supported by L. “Use per customer fell” → customer totals missing. “The vendor's cup is best on every environmental measure” → no method or comparison evidence supplied by V.
分别评估相关性与证据
- L直接支持两天间30个杯子的下降幅度。若无顾客总数,无法体现人均减少;若无更多天数数据,无法确立持久趋势。V与产品提案相关,但不支持其最高级表述。
- M有助于规划更广泛的对比,但未给出胜负方。请明确“greenest”的具体衡量标准,并要求提供包含假设的可获取报告。不要用编制的百分比降幅替代缺失证据,也不要声称每种可重复使用产品总是更优。
索赔审计:“一次性使用量减少了30个杯子” → 由L支持。“每位顾客的使用量下降” → 缺少顾客总数。“该供应商的杯子在所有环境指标上均为最佳” → V未提供任何方法或比较证据。
The log establishes a fall in disposable cups per customer. · 日志确立了每位顾客纸杯使用量的下降。
Customer totals are missing; absolute use and per-customer use are different measures. · 顾客总数缺失;绝对用量与人均用量是不同的指标。
What would best help evaluate the vendor’s superlative? · 什么最能帮助评估供应商的最高级宣称?
A testable comparison needs defined outcomes, boundaries and evidence. · 可测试的比较需要明确的成果、界限及证据。
Keep in-text citations and references paired
- An in-text citation identifies the source beside a borrowed idea; the reference entry lets the reader retrieve it. Follow one style required by your teaching centre. Its punctuation and rules for missing dates vary, so use the style guide rather than guessing.
- Record real author or organisation, title, date if available, publication details, locator and URL as needed. Never invent an author, page number or publication date. These cards can be acknowledged as fictional lesson cards L, V and M; they must not receive fabricated journal entries.
A link to a home page is not enough when your claim comes from a particular report. Save the report title and exact relevant location. Every cited work should have a reference entry, and every reference entry should have a genuine role in the text.
保留文中引用和参考文献配对
- 文中引用在借用观点旁标明来源;参考文献条目使读者能够检索到原文。请遵循教学中心要求的一种格式。由于标点符号和缺失日期的规则各不相同,请使用格式指南而非猜测。
- 记录真实的作者或组织名称、标题(如有)、日期、出版详情、定位符及URL(视情况而定)。切勿编造作者、页码或出版日期。这些卡片可被认可为虚构的教学卡片L、V和M;但它们不得获得捏造的期刊条目。
当您的主张来自特定报告时,仅链接到主页是不够的。保存报告标题和确切的相关位置。每篇被引用的作品都应有一个参考文献条目,且每个参考文献条目都应在文本中发挥真实作用。
Which TWO referencing actions are appropriate? · 哪两项引用行为是恰当的?
Use the style’s missing-information rules and preserve retrieval; do not fabricate bibliographic facts. · 使用该格式的缺失信息规则并保持可检索性;不得捏造 bibliographic 事实。
Write a recommendation with evidence gaps visible
- Combine L's observation with M's method guidance: the café could record more comparable days and customer totals, then define the wider comparison before choosing supplies. V's unsupported promise should be treated as a claim to verify, not as the conclusion.
- Write a 120-word paragraph identifying each card. Separate the observed change, the missing measurements and your proposed next action. Do not cite M as if it had measured this café, or L as if it compared complete product impacts.
撰写带有明显证据缺口的建议
- 结合L的观察与M的方法指导:咖啡馆可以记录更多可比天数和顾客总数,然后在选择供应品之前定义更广泛的比较范围。V未经证实的承诺应被视为需要验证的主张,而非结论。
- 撰写一段120词的段落,识别每张卡片。将观察到的变化、缺失的测量数据以及您提议的下一步行动分开。不要像M测量过这家咖啡馆那样引用它,也不要像L比较了完整产品影响那样引用它。
Check retrieval and claim support
- For a real project, open each original source again, locate the evidence and check the reference against the required style. Where the source says “may,” keep that uncertainty. Correct references do not excuse changing what a source actually concluded.
- Ask a partner to trace two claims to their exact source locations. If they cannot, repair the citation or remove the unsupported claim. A useful recommendation tells readers what is known, what remains unknown and what evidence the next decision needs.
Choose sources for the claims they can support, preserve their limits, pair citations with retrievable references, and verify promotional comparisons before relying on them.
检查检索能力和主张支持
- 对于真实项目,再次打开每个原始来源,定位证据并根据所需格式检查参考文献。如果来源说“可能”,请保留这种不确定性。正确的参考文献不能成为改变来源实际结论的借口。
- 请同伴追踪两个主张到其确切来源位置。如果他们无法做到,请修正引用或删除未经证实的主张。有用的建议应告诉读者已知什么、未知什么以及下一个决策需要什么证据。
选择能够支持主张的来源,保留其局限性,将引用与可检索的参考文献配对,并在依赖它们之前验证促销性比较。
Which conclusion fits all three cards? · 哪个结论符合全部三张卡片?
L provides a limited observation, M a method checklist, and V an unsupported promotional claim. · L提供有限观察,M提供方法清单,V提供未经支持的促销宣称。