Use the CRAAP Test linked above to evaluate these 2 sources below

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8a42df04-8b6d-4949-b20b-6f40a326db9e/the-pink-tax---how-gender-based-pricing-hurts-women-s-buying-power.pdf

https://steemit.com/economics/@daniscib/thepinktaxmyth-b0elfzuekr

Briefly share your scores and your findings for both sources.

Post 1 — Senate Report (JEC)

I gave The Pink Tax: How Gender-Based Pricing Hurts Women’s Buying Power a 13/15 on the CRAAP test. I gave it a 2 for Currency because it was published in 2016, so it’s not brand new but still recent. Relevance got a 3 since the whole report is about gender-based pricing and fits the topic well. Authority was a 3 because it was written by the U.S. Joint Economic Committee, which makes it very credible. Accuracy also got a 3 because it uses data, graphs, and sources to back up the information. For Purpose I gave it a 2, since while it is mostly informative, it was written from a government perspective which adds a little bias. Overall, it’s a strong and trustworthy source.

Post 2 — Steemit Article (daniscib)

I gave The Myth of the Pink Tax a 2/15 on the CRAAP test. For Currency I gave it a 1 because it was posted over 7 years ago. Relevance was a 1 since it does talk about the pink tax, but only as an opinion piece and not in a research-based way. Authority was a 0 because the author is just a Steemit user with no credentials. Accuracy was also a 0 since there are no citations or evidence, just personal claims. Purpose was a 0 because it is clearly biased and persuasive, trying to argue that the pink tax is a myth. Overall, this is not a reliable source for research.

The Pink Tax

CRAAP test score: 9

CURRENCY (1)- Due to information not being current and not having been updated in almost a decade.

RELEVANCE (3) - There are multiple viable and helpful resources, even if their statistics are outdated, and I find them to be genuine.

AUTHORITY (0) - Although sponsored by some trustworthy entities, I couldn't find any reports or links affiliated with (.edu, .com, .org, .net, or .gov)

ACCURACY (2)- Researchers provided well-founded information; a couple of grammatical and spelling errors were made, but in my opinion, the matter at hand was addressed.

PURPOSE (3)- The experts are 100% factual, as women, we always get the short end of the stick. Equal pay, credit, insurance, and the list goes on. The figures were brutally honest and sincere. Frankly speaking, we're undermined, underpaid, overlooked, and overcharged for everything due to our sex.

The Pink Tax was made by the JEC of the United States Congress. I gave it an 8 because the source is made from a government-affiliated source. Also, even though it was created in 2016, which is an older resource link but it still provides relevance, especially in informing about Women's Buying Powers and in the market. It also provides a source at the bottom of the page with links, which can also be used to inform and reference for a research paper.

In contrast, I gave the Steemit article a 3. While it is more recent, it’s a personal blog without expert sources. The content is largely opinion-based and lacks supporting evidence, making it less suitable for academic purposes.

In conclusion, the Pink Tax article is the stronger and more trustworthy source.

Currency (2): the article is still pretty recent and the information hasn't really changed. Pink Tax is still a topic people talk about today.

Relevance (2): it focuses on women and the price difference on everyday products, which is exactly what the topic is about.

Authority(2): it comes from the U.S. Congress website so it is legit and trustworthy source.

Accuracy (1): there are some stats and examples, but is not super detailed with where all this information such as numbers are coming from.

Purpose (1): this article is reliable and good source for school work. it explain the topic really well and clearly, and it comes from a credible place.