Unit 1: Evidence and credibility

In the subject thinking skill we are analysing arguments and how people might be convinced to believe that an argument its true, so our teacher asked us to read and make a summary of the unit 1 of our book.
The analysis of arguments its carried out in critical thinking. An argument has one or more reasons that show that the conclusion its true. The evidence persuade the one who is "listening" the argument to accept it, in fact evidence supports the argument. Credibility is needed to make the other person believe that the argument or evidence its belieavable. The evidence has a source, it might be an eyewitness, tv programme, etc, this should make the argument more believable. To asses credibility, in critical thinking there are some techniques which are called credibility criteria and they are:
Neutrality: A technique were a source is impartial and has no intention on modifying or lie on an evidence to get a benefit thats why the source is very credible.
Vested interest: Its when a source do not show some evidence and show the one who its convinient for them to have a benefit, if this is shown the creditbility will probably be reduced. This doesnt means that the source will lie
Bias: Vested interested can lead to bias, this means having a preferemce on something  and focusing on a particular point of view, this may reduce the credibility of a source.
Expertise: The evidence that an expert gives its highly believable because they have too much knowledge, training and because of their skills but not in every cases the evidence is credible.
Reputation: Depending on the reputation, if it its a high one, people may believe on the evidence. However this doesn't mean that the source provided its totally credible.
Observation and eyewitness accounts: Eyewitness are more credible because they observe in first person the event that happened. However in the retelling they will probably don't tell the event exactly as it happened, they will probably omit, change or add details. To asess the credibility of an eyewitness,this person must be analysed to be sure of the evidence.
Corroboration: When evidences are supported by the other ones and all of them show that they suggets the same thing and led into one conclusion, the evidence is corroborative, this concept increases the credibility of evidences a lot.
Selectivity and representativeness: When it is shown one-sided selection (this means that supports the point of view of an organisation) it reduces the credibility, here it is shown their bias. Presenting unrepresentative information reduces credibility of the source and evidence.
Context: This credibility critearia analyse the effect that the setting has on the evidence, Context is important because you can identify factors which might affect the evidence which people provide
Criterias might be chosen because of the relevant you think that it will have, They are mostly chosen  and used together, I mean, in practice they are chosen two or more to asses credibility of an evidence. Credibility doesn't mean true, true means accurate and correct, they are not the same, this can be shown for example in the forensic evidence, forensic scientists are experts so they are highly credible but maybe their evidence can be incorrect.