7th Grade Writing Quiz: Gather Information And Assess Credibility

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Gather Information And Assess Credibility, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for 7th Grade Writing.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

Question 1

1. Source B is more credible because it is written in simpler language for the public.
2. Source A is more credible because it is from a reputable government agency and provides evidence and dates. (correct answer)
3. They are equally credible because both are online and discuss the same topic.
4. Source B is more credible because it has more comments and shares.

Explanation: This question tests W.7.8—gather information from multiple sources, assess credibility/accuracy, quote/paraphrase avoiding plagiarism, follow citation format. Research requires: MULTIPLE CREDIBLE SOURCES (3-5 different: books, databases, credible websites, primary sources; assess credibility: author credentials/expert?, reputable publisher?, current date for current topics?, purpose/bias considered?—avoid unreliable: Wikipedia only, random blogs, no author, out-of-date, clearly biased unacknowledged), PROPER USE (quote: exact words in quotation marks with citation, paraphrase: own words with citation—change structure not just synonyms, summarize: main ideas with attribution—integrate smoothly), AVOID PLAGIARISM (cite all sources, don't copy word-for-word without quotes, put into own words when paraphrasing, attribute ideas), STANDARD CITATION (format taught: author, title, publication info, date, proper punctuation, parenthetical in text, works cited page). Chen compares EPA website (government agency, 2023, provides data) versus social media post (influencer without science training, unsupported claims). Source A is more credible because government agencies like EPA employ experts, provide evidence-based information, cite data sources, and update content regularly. Source B lacks credibility due to no scientific expertise, no evidence provided, and potentially dangerous misinformation about smoke being "harmless." Students should recognize that credible sources have qualified authors/organizations, provide evidence for claims, come from reputable publishers, and avoid unsupported opinions—social media engagement (comments/shares) doesn't indicate credibility.

Question 2

1. The author (or organization) and the date the page was published or updated. (correct answer)
2. A long summary of the article’s main ideas.
3. The student’s opinion about whether the website is trustworthy.
4. A list of other websites that talk about the same topic.

Explanation: This question tests W.7.8—gather information from multiple sources, assess credibility/accuracy, quote/paraphrase avoiding plagiarism, follow citation format. Research requires: MULTIPLE CREDIBLE SOURCES (3-5 different: books, databases, credible websites, primary sources; assess credibility: author credentials/expert?, reputable publisher?, current date for current topics?, purpose/bias considered?—avoid unreliable: Wikipedia only, random blogs, no author, out-of-date, clearly biased unacknowledged), PROPER USE (quote: exact words in quotation marks with citation, paraphrase: own words with citation—change structure not just synonyms, summarize: main ideas with attribution—integrate smoothly), AVOID PLAGIARISM (cite all sources, don't copy word-for-word without quotes, put into own words when paraphrasing, attribute ideas), STANDARD CITATION (format taught: author, title, publication info, date, proper punctuation, parenthetical in text, works cited page). Carlos's MLA citation lacks author information—the most critical missing element for proper attribution and allowing readers to locate the source. MLA format requires: Author (or organization if no individual author). "Title." Website Name, Date, URL—his entry shows only title, date, and URL. Options B, C, and D suggest inappropriate additions—Works Cited entries need factual information not summaries or opinions, and listing related websites isn't part of standard citation format. Students must learn proper citation formats include specific required elements in specific order, author/organization is crucial for credibility and location, and personal opinions don't belong in citations.

Question 3

1. This is acceptable because scientific information is common knowledge and never needs a citation
2. This is direct plagiarism because he copied the sentence word-for-word without quotation marks or citation (correct answer)
3. This is a strong paraphrase because he kept the same structure to avoid changing the meaning
4. This is not plagiarism as long as he lists the website somewhere, even without an in-text citation

Explanation: This question tests W.7.8—gather information from multiple sources, assess credibility/accuracy, quote/paraphrase avoiding plagiarism, follow citation format. Research requires: MULTIPLE CREDIBLE SOURCES (3-5 different: books, databases, credible websites, primary sources; assess credibility: author credentials/expert?, reputable publisher?, current date for current topics?, purpose/bias considered?—avoid unreliable: Wikipedia only, random blogs, no author, out-of-date, clearly biased unacknowledged), PROPER USE (quote: exact words in quotation marks with citation, paraphrase: own words with citation—change structure not just synonyms, summarize: main ideas with attribution—integrate smoothly), AVOID PLAGIARISM (cite all sources, don't copy word-for-word without quotes, put into own words when paraphrasing, attribute ideas), STANDARD CITATION (format taught: author, title, publication info, date, proper punctuation, parenthetical in text, works cited page). Amir copied the medical website's sentence word-for-word without any changes, quotation marks, or citation—this is direct plagiarism, the most serious form of academic dishonesty. The correct answer identifies this as copying verbatim without attribution. Option A wrongly claims scientific information needs no citation; option C misidentifies this as paraphrasing when no words were changed; option D incorrectly suggests a bibliography alone prevents plagiarism without in-text citations. Students must understand that using someone else's exact words requires quotation marks AND citation, while using their ideas in your own words requires citation. Teaching plagiarism prevention means showing clear examples of word-for-word copying versus proper quoting (with quotation marks and citation) and proper paraphrasing (significant rewording with citation), emphasizing that all borrowed information needs attribution.

Question 4

1. Source 1, because it is a government agency web page that is up to date, though it lists no individual author.
2. Source 4, because it was edited very recently and gathers information from many contributors into one place.
3. Source 3, because it is peer-reviewed and written by qualified researchers. (correct answer)
4. Source 2, because it is passionate about the topic and states its predictions with confidence.

Explanation: The best choice is the peer-reviewed journal article written by qualified researchers. Peer review means other experts checked the work before it was published, and the article includes methods and a reference list, so it is the strongest source for scientific evidence. The government agency page is reliable and current, but with no individual author and a general audience it is not as strong for detailed scientific evidence as a study reviewed by experts. The Wikipedia page can be edited by anyone, so a recent edit and many contributors do not guarantee accuracy—it is a starting point, not evidence. The blog post is the weakest option: being passionate and confident about a prediction is not proof, and with an anonymous author, a 2012 date, lots of ads, and no references, it fails almost every credibility test. When choosing sources for a scientific topic, look for expert authors, review or references, and a purpose focused on informing rather than persuading.

Question 5

1. Older sources are always more reliable than newer ones.
2. It is a primary source that provides firsthand information from the time period. (correct answer)
3. It does not need to be checked because newspapers never contain errors.
4. It is better than a textbook because it will automatically be unbiased.

Explanation: This question tests W.7.8—gather information from multiple sources, assess credibility/accuracy, quote/paraphrase avoiding plagiarism, follow citation format. Research requires: MULTIPLE CREDIBLE SOURCES (3-5 different: books, databases, credible websites, primary sources; assess credibility: author credentials/expert?, reputable publisher?, current date for current topics?, purpose/bias considered?—avoid unreliable: Wikipedia only, random blogs, no author, out-of-date, clearly biased unacknowledged), PROPER USE (quote: exact words in quotation marks with citation, paraphrase: own words with citation—change structure not just synonyms, summarize: main ideas with attribution—integrate smoothly), AVOID PLAGIARISM (cite all sources, don't copy word-for-word without quotes, put into own words when paraphrasing, attribute ideas), STANDARD CITATION (format taught: author, title, publication info, date, proper punctuation, parenthetical in text, works cited page). Riley's 1936 newspaper article serves as a primary source—firsthand account from the actual time period of the Dust Bowl, providing contemporary perspectives and observations unavailable in later secondary sources. Primary sources offer unique historical value regardless of age because they capture events as they happened. Options A, C, and D contain misconceptions—newer isn't always better for historical events, newspapers can contain errors/bias requiring critical reading, and primary sources can reflect period biases. Students should understand primary sources (diaries, newspapers, photographs from the time) versus secondary sources (textbooks, analyses written later), recognize both types have value, and evaluate all sources critically regardless of type or age.

Question 6

1. Wildfire smoke can irritate the lungs and worsen asthma, according to a state health department web page (California Department of Public Health, 2021). (correct answer)
2. Wildfire smoke can irritate the lungs and make asthma worse.
3. "Smoke can irritate lungs and make asthma worse" (California Department of Public Health).
4. The California Department of Public Health says smoke can irritate lungs and make asthma worse, so I don’t need to cite it.

Explanation: This question tests W.7.8—gather information from multiple sources, assess credibility/accuracy, quote/paraphrase avoiding plagiarism, follow citation format. Research requires: MULTIPLE CREDIBLE SOURCES (3-5 different: books, databases, credible websites, primary sources; assess credibility: author credentials/expert?, reputable publisher?, current date for current topics?, purpose/bias considered?—avoid unreliable: Wikipedia only, random blogs, no author, out-of-date, clearly biased unacknowledged), PROPER USE (quote: exact words in quotation marks with citation, paraphrase: own words with citation—change structure not just synonyms, summarize: main ideas with attribution—integrate smoothly), AVOID PLAGIARISM (cite all sources, don't copy word-for-word without quotes, put into own words when paraphrasing, attribute ideas), STANDARD CITATION (format taught: author, title, publication info, date, proper punctuation, parenthetical in text, works cited page). Maya needs to paraphrase information about wildfire smoke effects while properly citing the source. Option A successfully paraphrases by using different wording ("irritate the lungs and worsen asthma" instead of exact original) AND includes proper citation with source name and year in parentheses. Option B paraphrases but lacks any citation; option C uses quotation marks incorrectly for a paraphrase and has incomplete citation; option D mentions the source but explicitly refuses to cite it. Students must learn that paraphrasing requires BOTH rewording the information in their own words AND citing the source. Teaching effective paraphrasing means demonstrating how to change sentence structure and vocabulary while preserving meaning, always followed by proper citation format including source name and date to give credit for the information.

Question 7

1. It has no listed author or date and cites no studies, so it may be trying to sell products rather than inform readers fairly. (correct answer)
2. It is trustworthy because it takes a clear side and confidently supports letting students rely on AI, which is a helpful topic.
3. It is trustworthy because it links to many current products and comes from a website that clearly focuses on education tools.
4. It is a minor concern that the author and date are missing, but the detailed content and strong claims still make it reliable overall.

Explanation: The best answer points to the real red flags: no author or date means you cannot check who wrote it or whether it is current, and no cited studies means its big claim (“AI always improves grades”) is unsupported. Combined with a website full of product links and discounts, the source seems built to sell things, not to inform you honestly. The choice saying it is trustworthy because it takes a clear side is wrong—supporting one position, especially without evidence, does not make a source credible; a strong opinion is not proof. The choice praising many product links and an education-focused site is wrong because commercial sites that push products often prioritize sales over accuracy, and links to deals are not the same as reliable information. The last choice is wrong because a missing author and date are not minor issues; you cannot verify a source or its claims when both are absent, and confident wording does not replace evidence. To judge credibility, look for a named author, a date, and real evidence behind the claims.

Question 8

1. There is no problem here, because he swapped in several new words, so the sentence now counts as his own original writing without a citation
2. This is too-close paraphrasing plus a missing citation; he should rewrite it in his own structure and credit the museum article (correct answer)
3. The only real problem is that a photograph and a history book cannot be mixed with a website in the same research paper
4. This is acceptable, because the historian who wrote the article already did the citing, so Carlos does not have to cite it again

Explanation: The best answer names both problems at once: Carlos kept the museum article's exact sentence structure and only swapped in synonyms ("extreme" for "severe," "bad" for "poor," "lots" for "many," "move" for "migrate"), which is still copying the original idea and wording too closely. On top of that, he added no citation. Real paraphrasing means rebuilding the sentence in your own structure AND crediting where the idea came from. The option that says swapping words makes it his own writing is wrong: changing a few synonyms while keeping the same structure is patchwriting, not original work, and it still needs a citation. The option claiming the only problem is mixing a photograph, a book, and a website is wrong too—using several different source types is exactly what good research does. The option saying Carlos does not have to cite because the historian already cited things misunderstands citation: every writer must credit the sources they personally borrow from, no matter what those sources did.

Question 9

1. Source B is more credible because it presents many different user opinions in one place, and hearing several viewpoints makes a source more balanced and trustworthy
2. Source A is more credible because it comes from a government science agency and was updated recently, while Source B lacks evidence and expert authorship (correct answer)
3. Both sources are equally credible because they are both available online and both directly discuss the topic of earthquakes that Chen is researching
4. Source B is more credible because it was published earlier, and older sources on scientific topics are generally more accurate than newer ones

Explanation: The strongest choice recognizes that a U.S. Geological Survey page comes from the official government agency that studies earthquakes, was updated recently in 2022, and offers factual, expert information. That combination—expert authorship, a reputable publisher, and a current date—makes it far more credible than the forum post, which has no named experts and no evidence. The choice claiming Source B is better because it collects many user opinions is wrong: a pile of unsupported opinions is not the same as balanced, reliable information, especially when none of the posters are experts and none offer evidence. The choice saying both are equally credible fails because being online and being on-topic tell you nothing about quality; a credible source and a conspiracy-theory forum can both appear online yet differ hugely in trustworthiness. The choice preferring Source B because it is older reverses a key rule: for scientific topics, more recent sources usually reflect updated knowledge, so an older forum post is not automatically more accurate. Judging credibility means checking who wrote a source, whether they provide evidence, and whether the information is current.

Question 10

1. It is acceptable because he swapped in a few different words, so putting his own citation on it is optional here.
2. It is a good paraphrase with a citation, so it avoids plagiarism and credits the original source. (correct answer)
3. It is plagiarism because he kept too much of the original meaning, so a paraphrase like this still counts as copying.
4. It is unnecessary because he added a citation, so restating the idea in his own words was extra work he could skip.

Explanation: The best answer says Jordan wrote a good paraphrase with a citation. He changed the sentence structure and wording ("like" to "such as," "between flowers" to "from flower to flower") while keeping the meaning, and he credited the source with (Smith, 2021). That is exactly how to paraphrase without plagiarizing. The choice saying a citation is optional because he changed a few words is wrong: any time you use someone else's idea, you must cite it, even after rewording. The choice calling it plagiarism because he kept the meaning is wrong: a paraphrase is supposed to keep the original meaning while changing the words and structure, and a citation makes it honest, not copied. The choice saying paraphrasing was unnecessary work he could skip is wrong: a citation alone does not let you copy wording, so putting the idea into your own words is a required part of paraphrasing, not extra effort. Good research writing combines both moves Jordan made—rewording in your own voice AND citing the source.

Question 11

1. Treat all four sources as equally trustworthy, since each one discusses snacks or sugar and giving them the same weight keeps his research balanced and fair.
2. Rely mainly on the candy company article and the forum post, since both express strong views and give a real sense of what people actually think about bans.
3. Use sources 1 and 2 as main evidence, note the bias in source 3, and avoid source 4 unless it can be verified elsewhere. (correct answer)
4. Build his plan around the forum post and check it against the candy company article, since both offer everyday opinions rather than confusing scientific language.

Explanation: The best plan leans on the peer-reviewed study and the government health page as main evidence, because both come from qualified authors, are recent, and have no product to sell. It also handles the weaker sources wisely: it acknowledges that the candy company article is biased (the company profits from selling junk food) and it sets aside the anonymous forum post unless another reliable source confirms it. That is exactly what assessing credibility means—weighing author expertise, date, and possible bias. Treating all four sources as equally trustworthy is wrong because credibility is not equal; an anonymous post and a company ad do not deserve the same weight as expert research. Relying mainly on the candy company article and forum post fails because strong opinions are not the same as reliable evidence, and a company arguing for its own products is clearly biased. Building the plan around the forum post and checking it against the candy company article is also flawed, since two low-credibility sources cannot verify each other, and "everyday opinions" are not more accurate than expert findings. Only the plan that ranks sources by credibility uses information responsibly.

Question 12

1. Leave the sentence as it is because this is widely known information that most people already accept as common knowledge.
2. Add an in-text citation after the sentence, such as (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2022). (correct answer)
3. Put the whole sentence in quotation marks, since showing that the words are borrowed makes an extra citation unnecessary.
4. Reword the sentence using different synonyms and sentence structure so that it now counts as his own paraphrase.

Explanation: Jamal borrowed a specific idea from a source, so he must give credit even though the words are not a direct quote. In APA style, that means placing an in-text citation with the author and year right after the sentence, like (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2022). This choice does exactly that. Leaving the sentence unchanged treats the idea as common knowledge, but a specific finding from a 2022 policy statement is not something everyone already knows, so it still needs a citation. Putting the sentence in quotation marks may show the words are borrowed, but quotation marks alone are not enough—you still have to tell the reader where the quote came from. Rewording with synonyms and new sentence structure creates a paraphrase, yet a paraphrase of someone else's idea still requires a citation; changing the wording does not make the idea yours. Only adding the citation both avoids plagiarism and follows APA format.

Question 13

1. He used a direct quote correctly with quotation marks and an APA-style in-text citation. (correct answer)
2. He should paraphrase the sentence instead, because directly quoting a source counts as plagiarism even when it is cited.
3. He should drop the quotation marks now that the citation is present, since the citation already signals the words are borrowed.
4. He should delete the page number from the citation, because page numbers belong only in a works cited list, not in the text.

Explanation: The best answer notes that Amir did everything right: he put the source’s exact words inside quotation marks and followed them with a complete APA in-text citation naming the author (National Academies), the year (2020), and the page (p. 112). That is exactly how you use a direct quote. The choice claiming he must paraphrase to avoid plagiarism is wrong—direct quoting is allowed and honest as long as you use quotation marks and cite the source, which Amir did. The choice telling him to drop the quotation marks is wrong because a citation alone is not enough; quotation marks are required to show the words are copied exactly, not reworded. The choice telling him to delete the page number is wrong because in APA a direct quote should include the page number right in the text so readers can find the exact words. Since only one option describes correct source use, that is the answer.

Question 14

1. There is no problem, because she reworded the idea into her own sentence and added the fact to her own report about vaccines.
2. It is direct copying (plagiarism) because she used the exact wording without quotation marks and a citation naming the source. (correct answer)
3. It is only a citation-format issue, because the facts are accurate and she simply forgot to list the website on her works-cited page.
4. It is acceptable paraphrasing, because she kept the historical facts the same while presenting them smoothly inside her own report.

Explanation: Sofia copied the website’s sentence word for word but presented it as her own writing. Because the wording is exactly the same, this is plagiarism: using someone else’s exact words requires both quotation marks and a citation naming the source. That is why the choice about direct copying is correct. The choice saying there is no problem is wrong because she did NOT reword anything—her sentence matches the original letter for letter, so it is not her own wording. The choice calling it only a citation-format issue is wrong because the accuracy of the facts and a missing works-cited entry are not the real problem; even a perfect citation would still need quotation marks around exact wording. The choice calling it acceptable paraphrasing is wrong because paraphrasing means restating an idea in your own sentence structure and words—Sofia changed nothing, so no paraphrasing happened. Remember: to paraphrase, change the wording AND cite the source; to quote, use quotation marks AND cite the source. Copying exact words without either is always plagiarism, no matter how short the passage is or what the website’s address ends in.