[gabruoy]

If there were any disagreement between the two articles at all then there could at least be some kind of conflict. The whole study rests on the idea that Reuters is a trusted investigative journalist, and if they said something like “coca-cola fails their pledge to do xyz” I would trust them over a company statement.

Instead the options given are a primary source of information and a news article that repeats that information while giving some context and opinions of environmentalists regarding the statement. I don’t see anything special about Reuters being the one to write this article that somehow makes it a more trustworthy news source.

[mewpmewp2]

Better examples would've been for example if Coca Cola had a title:

"We reduced plastic waste by 75%".

and then Reuters had another one

"Coca Cola claims to have reduced plastic waste by 75%, but it's misleading and accurate only according to this single flawed metric".

Then I would trust Reuters more, but headings and contents matter.