1.

Personally, I feel that through the introduction of goal-line technology, referees would have less of an
incentive to maintain or improve their decision-making skills. If something could accurately perform
somebody else's job 95% of the time, it’s hard to imagine them investing more time into their work
efforts. Due to the technology, referees probably wouldn’t need to even look at the playing field to
make their judgements. Their credibility becomes questionable at this point, as well as their decision-
making skills.

2. Based off what I have gathered from the videos, I still do not believe that I have enough evidence to
conclude that the oil spills have stopped. All that I saw was a new cap being put in place. I was not
informed with any sources of data or statements made by officials. My viewpoint becomes extremely
limited when my only source of evidence belongs to a YouTube video. The only credibility I have in the
video clips would be that it originated from a source that is funded by the Russian government. Even
then, this still does not make the evidence more reliable, because of how the source is state controlled.
There is obviously going to be bias in what they want to show their audience in order to fit their agenda.

3. My ability to see is only credible if I was there to witness the said event in its entirety. If anything had
obstructed or limited my understanding of an event, then my credibility is greatly decreased. Your ability
to see is only based on how much access you had to evidence.