Risk Communication

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

TopicsNon-Author OpinionScience

Keep going in LSAT Lab

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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

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. Those who communicate risks in this way seem to believe that lay people do not understand the actual nature of technological persuasive stance, many lay people see “risk communication” as a euphemism for brainwashing done by experts.

Since, however, the goal of risk communication should be to enable people to make informed decisions about technological risks, 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’ definitions. Lay people, for example, tend specific risks of electromagnetic fields produced by high-voltage power transmission well enough to make informed decisions.

Risk communication should therefore be based on the principle that people process new information in the context of their existing beliefs. If people know nothing about a topic, they will find messages about that topic incomprehensible. If they have erroneous beliefs, they are likely to misconstrue the messages. Thus, communicators need to balanced material that tells people what they need to know to make decisions about technological risks.

What this question is testing

Non-Author Opinion

Topic

The author is pushing back on a common but misguided approach to "risk communication" — and arguing for one that respects how regular people actually think.

Framework

Highlight Noteworthy. The author isn't neutral; they're explicitly criticizing one approach and recommending another.

Main Point

Here's the simpler version: when companies want to introduce a risky technology, "risk communication" often means The author thinks that's wrong. The real job of risk communication is helping people make informed decisions. Lay people aren't actually as bad at understanding risk as experts assume — they just weight risks ethically and use frameworks that come from their existing beliefs. So the way to communicate well is to find out what people already know and believe, then design messages around that.

P1: The wrong approach

For a lot of technology developers, "risk communication" means persuading the public the risks are small and shouldn't worry them. They cite studies showing lay people care about exotic hazards while ignoring everyday ones. So lay people understandably feel like risk communication is just expert spin.

P2: But lay people aren't that bad at risk

The real goal should be helping people make informed decisions. Lay definitions of risk reflect ethical concerns — for example, putting more weight on risks to kids than on risks to consenting adults. But when asked to rank hazards by annual fatalities directly, lay people do reasonably well. The studies claiming lay people are clueless often use bad methods. And in a recent study, lay people understood specific risks (electromagnetic fields from power lines) well enough to make informed decisions when given facts and time.

P3: The right principle for design

Risk communication should be designed around a simple principle: people process new information through their existing beliefs. If they know nothing, the message goes over their heads. If they hold mistaken beliefs, they'll fit the new message into the wrong framework and misread it. So the people designing the message have to know what their audience already thinks. The author cites a radon-risk study where researchers used interviews and questionnaires to figure out what to put in their brochure — and people who read it understood the risks much better than people who read a generic government brochure.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question

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

Answer choices

Opposite9% picked this
lay people’s tendency to become alarmed about technologies that they find
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%
Neither Party Would Emphasize12% picked this
lay people’s tendency to compare risks that experts would not
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%
Out of Scope: scientists' advice5% picked this
the need for lay people to adopt scientists’ advice about
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.
5%
Opposite2% picked this
the inability of lay people to rank hazards by the number of
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%
Correct72% picked this
the impact of lay people’s value systems on their perceptions
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%

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