Understanding conflicts between sources is an inherent part of science text comprehension. We examined whether readers' memories for conflicts and their situational interpretation of conflicts would be affected by reading goals and lexical cue phrases that signal rhetorical relationships. To this end, 198 undergraduates read multiple documents on a medical controversy either with signals or without, following one of three reading goals (argument, summary, keyword list). Readers' memories for conflicting information were measured with a conflict verification task, and their situational interpretation of conflicts was analyzed from written essays. Results reveal that both argument and summary tasks as well as signaling facilitated verification of conflicts. In their essays, however, summary goal readers reported conflicts more often in a one-sided fashion. In contrast, argument goal readers and those who read texts with signals reported conflicts in a balanced fashion that included source information. Both theoretical and practical implications of the findings for reading about controversial scientific issues are discussed.