What would a researcher most likely consult next as a credible source for a paper on current H5N1 research? O a student's research paper about H5N1 research shared on her blog O an article from last week's The New York Times about H5N1 research a wiki created by survivors of the H5N1 flu with details of their illnesses O a medical company's advertisement about H5N1 on its company website

An article from last week's The New York Times about H5N1 research

Explanation:

The given question refers to the following passage from When Birds Get the Flu written by John DiConsiglio:

In 2005, a study began testing a possible bird flu vaccine on 450 people. The vaccine uses a type of bird flu that was found in Southeast Asia in 2004. Some of the early results are promising. But as of spring 2007, there is still no vaccine available for H5N1.

The researcher would most likely consult an article from last week's The New York Times about H5N1 research. News articles should be objective, which means that they shouldn't reveal the journalist's opinions, feelings, beliefs, or assumptions about what they're writing about. When writing articles about illnesses, reputable news sources rely on properly conducted research. This is why we could say that an article relying on research would be the best option.

A student's research paper wouldn't be a good source because students often don't know how to choose good sources themselves. This results in factually incorrect research papers.

Wiki pages can be edited by anyone, which is why they should be used with caution. Statements made by survivors of an illness are not a credible source.

Medical companies can be considered a credible source, but an advertisement wouldn't be a very useful source.

This is why the second option is the correct one.

shu9sfuidayfsdpisyvruo i wanr them nnuegt

explanation: