In interview stage, candidates will often be given two conflicting articles and be asked to evaluate them and explain their thought process. How would you do this?

Start with prior knowledge- What do you know about this subject- if anything? What would you like to know? How does your prior knowledge compare with the information given in the articles? What insight can this provide?Provenance.- Who wrote these articles? What are their credentials? Are the articles peer-reviewed? When were the articles written? Could the more recent article represent an advance in knowledge or technology which negates the earlier article? Does the earlier article represent outdated ideas or methodology? Similarities.- Where, if at all, do the two articles overlap? Do these similarities constitute commonly agreed facts, or overlaps in argument? What are the differences? How are these differences justified or explained?Methodology and Evidence.- What methodology or evidence is used to justify each argument? How strong is the evidence? How effective is the methodology? Are there any flaws in the methodology? Have these flaws been discussed or accounted for? How much weight does the evidence give to the argument and why?Further questions. - What else would you like to know? Is there anything that you feel neither article has accounted for or discussed? Do you think both could be true? Or neither? How and why?