Evaluate the argument. Does the reasoning make sense, and is it supported by the evidence introduced? Think of counter-possibilities — what could or would falsify the author's supposition? Find out who disagrees. Does their reasoning make sense, and is it supported by the evidence they proffer? Etc.
It's important to know the limits of your knowledge and reasoning capabilities and defer to relevant experts, which is known as epistemic learned helplessness[1]. This is also much faster, as a lot of bullshit sounds like truth if you're unfamiliar with the field.
Better to just account for expert opinions rather than defer to them; experts typically don't have a magical ability to see through uncertainty. And it is possible to find experts who support a very wide range of opinions. This can be compounded - eg, government officials have fair incentive not to report bad news unless they are completely certain that things have gone wrong. So it would be a mistake to do your recession planning while deferring to the experts at the US Fed.
Another topical example is the WHO in this COVID-19 crisis. The WHO was pretty consistently reporting on what had certainly gone wrong rather than what had likely gone wrong so it was preempted by a bunch of countries closing their borders against the WHO's advice.
This is known as "critical thinking."