0
First-hand evidence is evidence that comes from someone that witnessed/was apart of whatever the situation is. For example, if there was a fire in a building, and you were trying to figure out what caused it, you would interview those who were in the building around the time of the fire. That would be first-hand evidence. Second-hand evidence would be people who were outside at the time of the fire, or people who were not directly witnessing the event. It is more reliable because the people were right there, and have a personal account of what happened.
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Coach
Devin
TaigaFirst-hand evidence is more reliable because it comes directly from the source, making it less prone to errors or bias that can occur with second-hand information. First-hand evidence also allows for a more accurate and complete understanding of the situation or knowledge being conveyed compared to second-hand evidence, which may be subject to misinterpretation or misinformation through repeated transmission.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Conclusion must be based on several evidence?
Conclusions based on multiple pieces of evidence are more robust and reliable because they consider a broader set of information. By synthesizing various data points, trends, and sources, a conclusion can be more comprehensive and less prone to biases or errors that might arise from relying on a single piece of evidence. This approach also helps in developing a better understanding of the complexity of the issue at hand.
Are observational studys reliable?
Observational studies can provide valuable insights, but they have limitations. They can suggest associations between factors, but cannot prove causation. Factors like confounding variables and biases can impact the reliability of observational studies. It is important to interpret their results cautiously and consider other types of studies for more robust evidence.
Why is it possible to have a reliable measure that is not valid but impossible to have a valid measure that is not reliable?
A reliable measure is consistent and yields consistent results, so it may not be measuring the intended construct accurately (lack validity). On the other hand, a valid measure accurately assesses the intended construct, but it must be consistent and produce stable results (reliable) to ensure that the measurements are dependable and trustworthy.
Which of the observations listed below is the most reliable way to determine if a customer is intoxicated?
The most reliable way to determine if a customer is intoxicated is to observe their behavior for signs such as slurred speech, unsteady movements, and impaired judgment. Physical signs are more reliable indicators than subjective assessments or assumptions.
What may be the consequences of making subjective rather than objective observation statements?
Making subjective observation statements can lead to bias, misinterpretation, and lack of credibility in your observations. Objective observation statements are more reliable because they are based on facts and evidence, while subjective observations are influenced by personal feelings, opinions, and experiences. This can impact the accuracy and validity of your observations.
