> The claim is the virus originated from a wet market where animals like bats sold for food, so it’s not inaccurate to suggest it was transmitted by bats meant for human consumption.
It absolutely is. You don't have any evidence for this, just speculation. Is it plausible? Sure. Is it "most probably" (as the commenter above suggested, linking to a source)? No, there's no evidence cited that the disease was spread by eating bats in the article.
So yes, it is inaccurate to make a claim, and then cite a source which doesn't make that claim, without making it clear that you're just speculating, and have no actual information to add.
It absolutely is. You don't have any evidence for this, just speculation. Is it plausible? Sure. Is it "most probably" (as the commenter above suggested, linking to a source)? No, there's no evidence cited that the disease was spread by eating bats in the article.
So yes, it is inaccurate to make a claim, and then cite a source which doesn't make that claim, without making it clear that you're just speculating, and have no actual information to add.