Which could make a source unreliable?(1 point)

The existence of an inaccuracy can certainly raise questions about a source's reliability, especially if it pertains to key information or the overall credibility of the article. However, if we interpret the options, having non-experts corroborate the data or express disagreement might indicate a lack of authority or expertise, which can also affect reliability. Typos may suggest a lack of professionalism but don't inherently make a source unreliable.

From the options given, the most compelling reasons why a source could be deemed unreliable are:

1. **Only non-experts corroborate the data in an article** — This suggests a lack of authoritative support.
2. **A group of non-experts disagrees with the data published in an article** — This might indicate that the information is flawed if it lacks expert consensus.

Ultimately, the presence of an inaccurate fact might indicate unreliability, but context matters; a single inaccuracy doesn't automatically render a source entirely unreliable if the overarching argument is grounded in credible information.

Thus, the argument here points to the importance of evaluating the qualifications of the source and the evidence provided, distinguishing minor errors from significant inaccuracies affecting the article's trustworthiness.