Reading Comprehension

PT101 · S1 · P1 · Q5 Risk Communication

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

To many developers of technologies that affect public health or the environment, “risk communication” means persuading the public that the potential risks of such technologies are small and should be ignored.

Topic

What "risk communication" should mean and how it should be designed, given how lay people actually process information about technological risks.

Framework

Highlight Noteworthy. The author critiques a common (persuasion-oriented) approach to risk communication and proposes a different one based on how people process information.

Main Point

Risk communication shouldn't mean persuading the public to dismiss risks; it should help people make informed decisions, which requires understanding how the public perceives risk and recognizing that people interpret new information through their existing beliefs — so messages must be designed accordingly.

P1: The wrong view of risk communication

Many technology developers treat "risk communication" as persuasion: they argue lay people misjudge exotic vs. mundane hazards. As a result, lay people see "risk communication" as expert brainwashing.

P2: A better view of how lay people perceive risk

The actual goal should be enabling informed decisions, which requires understanding lay perception. Lay definitions reflect ethical concerns more than experts' do — for example, lay people weight risks to children more heavily than risks to consenting adults. But asked to rank annual fatalities directly, lay people give reasonable estimates. Studies that claim lay people misjudge exotic risks often use questionable methods. A recent study found lay people, given facts and time, understood electromagnetic field risks well enough to make informed decisions.

P3: How to design risk communication

Risk communication should be based on the principle that people process new information in the context of existing beliefs. People who know nothing about a topic find messages incomprehensible; those with mistaken beliefs are likely to misconstrue messages. Communicators must know recipients' knowledge and beliefs to design messages that aren't dismissed or misinterpreted. A radon study showed that brochures designed using interviews and questionnaires beat a government brochure written without that preparation. Careful preparation lets communicators produce balanced material.

It can be inferred that the authors of the passage would be more likely than would the risk communicators discussed in the first paragraph to emphasize which one of the following?

lay people’s tendency to become
Opposite
The risk communicators would be more likely to emphasize this, since they are the ones who don't respect lay people's risk assessment (and love to point out how lay people foolishly get upset about exotic hazards that pose little chance of harm).
9% picked this
lay people’s tendency to compare
Neither Party Would Emphasize
In the bottom of the second paragraph, the authors are acknowledging that some studies have made lay people's risk assessment look bad (and the authors would not be emphasizing that, since their whole thing is respecting lay people's capacity to assess risk). The author is defending the lay people in these studies by saying some of them have the sketchy method of "asking lay people to rank risks that are hard to compare". The author is saying, "Of course they'll struggle if you give them a really hard task." But lay people don't inherently have a tendency to compare risks that are hard to compare.
12% picked this
the need for lay people
Out of Scope: scientists' advice
The passage never talks about scientists advice about technological risk at all. Given that this sentiment is making it seem like lay people need to accept someone else's views about risk (rather than absorbing the needed information and making their own decisions), it would seem more like the risk communicators and less like the authors.
4% picked this
the inability of lay people
Opposite
The risk communicators would be more likely to emphasize this, since they are the ones who don't respect lay people's risk assessment. The authors actually say in the middle of the 2nd paragraph that, "if asked to rank hazards by the number of annual fatalities, without reference to ethical judgments, lay people provide quite reasonable estimates."
2% picked this
Correct
the impact of lay people’s
Why this is right
This is something the authors emphasized in the 2nd paragraph: .... a clear understanding about how the public perceives risk is needed. Lay people's definitions of "risk" are more likely to reflect subjective ethical concerns than are experts' decisions. This pair of sentences implies that risk communicators are not currently taking this into consideration. By saying, "A clear understanding about X is needed. X is more likely to do Y", it's implying that we currently lack a sufficient appreciation of the fact that X is more likely to do Y. A couple sentences later, the authors reiterate that, "If you ask lay people to rank hazards without reference to ethical judgments, they provide quite reasonable estimates". This goes against risk communicators' notion that lay people aren't good at assessing risks.
Skill tested: Non-Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
72% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free