Certain explanatory elements or documents can convey unambiguously inaccurate explanations, or they may simply suggest such explanations and encourage a critical passivity towards them. This chapter presents these "risk factors", in particular: the accuracy of the conclusion and the associated "confirmation bias" (two examples); the case where explanations that would merit critical analysis share the typical characteristics of a common reasoning; the inaccurate designation of the entities involved; an "all-or-nothing" view of the physical properties of objects (two examples); small values of physical quantities assimilated to zero values (three examples); the "single cause" syndrome (three examples); local analysis (as opposed to systemic analysis); explanation in the form of a story; misleading visual messages, analogies or metaphors. The conclusion emphasizes the fact that risks must be assessed in the light of the public, and that some compromises may have to be negotiated for a given public. [For the complete volume, "Developing Critical Thinking in Physics: The Apprenticeship of Critique. Contributions from Science Education Research. Volume 7," see ED615688.]