A judge must evaluate evidence systematically. Use these 4 criteria to determine if a source is admissible for academic research:
1. Authority (Credentials)
Is the author qualified to write on this topic? Look for degrees (Ph.D., M.D.), institutional affiliations (universities, reputable organizations), or extensive professional experience in the exact field. A journalist is rarely an "expert" in a scientific field.
2. Currency (Date)
Is the information up-to-date? For fast-moving fields like science, medicine, or technology, sources should ideally be published within the last 5-7 years. History or literature can use older sources.
3. Objectivity (Bias & Agenda)
Why was this written? To inform, persuade, or sell? Look for strong emotional language, financial conflicts of interest (e.g., an oil company funding a climate study), or obvious political leanings that compromise objectivity.
4. Rigor (Peer-Review)
Has the information been vetted? The gold standard is Peer-Reviewed Academic Journals. Think tanks and major government reports (like the IPCC or CDC) are also highly reputable. Blogs, Wikipedia, and op-eds are generally not acceptable as primary academic evidence.
⚖️
Source Court
Survival Mode
Survival Mode Rules
Evaluate sources to build your Judicial Reputation (Score). Maintain a hot streak to earn massive multipliers. But beware: make 3 incorrect rulings, and it's Game Over (Disbarred).
Select Your Playstyle (Judicial Persona)
The Detective
2x Points: Authority
Masters at verifying author credentials.
The Archivist
2x Points: Currency
Masters at evaluating publication dates.
The Skeptic
2x Points: Bias
Masters at sniffing out hidden agendas.
The Scholar
2x Points: Peer-Review
Masters at verifying academic rigor.
Custom AI Practice Mode
Strikes⚖️⚖️⚖️
Streak0 🔥
Score0
AuthorPublicationDateType
Evidence Gathering (Optional)
1. AuthorityDoes the author possess verifiable credentials or institutional expertise in this specific field?
2. CurrencyIs this source sufficiently recent (usually within 5-7 years) to be considered current?
3. RigorWas this published in a rigorous, peer-reviewed academic journal or by a highly reputable institution?
4. ObjectivityIs this source objective, free from extreme bias, emotional language, or financial conflict?