The purpose of this study is to examine the quantity and quality of the data component used by seventh-grade students in their arguments related to issues unique to the city of Bolu: Seben Lake, chicken coops, leather tanneries, base stations, and Hydroelectric Power Plants (HPP). Three different study groups, with 12 participants in each group (in total 36 participants), were the subject of this research, which was conducted over a total of 10 weeks. Each study group interacted with a different data source: the outdoor group collected data on field trips, the newspaper group read and examined related articles in the press, and the presentation group listened to visual presentations. The groups reflected the data obtained from their data sources to the argumentation implementations. The resulting of content analyses, based on the items in Toulmin's (1958) argument model showed that, of the total of 847 data components generated in the participants' argumentations, the newspaper group used the most data in their arguments, while the presentation group employed the least data. The outdoor and presentation groups generally utilized data based on the data cited in their data source, while the newspaper group used more data based on their daily life experiences. The highest amount of data was employed in relation to the issue of leather tanneries based on data acquired during field trips in the outdoor group, in relation to HPP based on visual presentations in the presentation group, and in relation to Seben Lake based on daily life experiences in the newspaper group. In conclusion, the quantity and the quality of the data component used in students' arguments with regard to local socioscientific issues changed according to the data source with which they interacted and the content of the socioscientific issue. In light of this, a few suggestions are made in this paper's conclusion.