Which statement is a correct evaluation of the source?
luis is researching how he can gain muscle he has come
across the website
protein 4 u
protein 4 u is a fast acting and natural protein powder
designed to you gain muscle. it is pleasant tasting
and dissolves easily into water or a favorite beverage
added to a weightlifting of bodybuilding routine protein 4
u will you build muscle quickly and safety but don't
listen tous listen to what some of our customers are
the source is valid because it contains information that
comes directly from the company
the source is invalid because it relies on personal
testimonials about the product
the source is valid because it cites the people who
supplied information for the article
the source is invalid because it is unrelated to the
topic that luis is researching
protein 4 u is the best product ever it me gain
muscle
"the results were even faster than promised in just two
weeks, i started noticing a difference
"i add it to my smoothie every day before my workout. i've
tried protein shakes before, but this tastes and works

The source is valid because it provides details about the shake and customers statements are available

The correct option is the second one: The source is invalid because it relies on personal testimonial about the product

Explanation:

The correct option is the second one: The source is invalid because it relies on personal testimonial about the product because the speech doesn’t include accurate information about its origin, its components or ingredients and how it works. We have a little paragraph of information which tells us the consumer has to add it food or beverages, but it is not specific. Thus, in the text, the most valuable part is composed by the personal testimonies we found at the end, but they can’t be a trustworthy source because they are too personal and they are not related to the composition of the protein or something that marks how it works.

The first option: The source is valid because it contains information that comes directly from the company can’t be the one because we don’t have that information, we only can read a general description of what’s the protein and some commentaries about presumed buyers. The third option: The source is valid because it cites the people who supplied information for the article is not suitable because the buyer’s opinions can’t be the biggest part of the information product’s part; it, of course, can work as a proof, but no in the way that this text presents them. Finally, the fourth option: The source is invalid because it is unrelated to the topic that Luis is researching is not working because Luis is, in fact, searching information about how can he gain some muscle and the text presents a product that it is assumed that could help him.

A way to check our sources’ reliability is using the CARS checklist, that is method trough we can evaluate if they work or not. CARS method means:

C: Credibility, A: Accuracy, R: Reasonableness and S: Support.

Applying that criteria to our sources we can decide its reliability in a quick and easy assessment.    

the excerpt from chapter 2 of "animal farm", by george orwell that is an example of foreshadowing is "these three (snowball, napoleon, and squealer) had elaborated old major's teachings into a complete system of thought to which they gave the name of animalism." animal farm is an allegory of how czarist russia developed into communist russia with all its corruption. old major's teachings represent marx's theories turned into communism, animalism, by the three pigs. this foreshadows the oppression and corruption that will follow this revolt.

the term that describes the best dear evan hansen