Reading comp PrepTest 101 · Section 1 · Question 2

Topic: Social Sciences

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Two views of "risk communications" (tech devs: risk minimization; lay people: brainwashing)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • View of developers of tech that affects public health/environment:
    • "Risk communication" means convincing people that the risk of tech is low, so they cite studies that show that people overestimate "exotic hazards" while underestimating "mundane hazards" (first and second sentences)
  • Views of many lay people:
    • "Risk communication" refers to brainwashing done by experts (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Author's view (risk communicators should understand how people perceive risk)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • Risk communicators should help people make informed decisions about tech, so they need to understand how the public sees risk (first sentence)
    • Although lay people allow ethics to influence how they view risk, they often possess accurate knowledge about risk (fourth sentence)
  • Comparison, according to the author:
    • Lay people's understanding of risk involves ethics more than experts' understanding (second sentence)
  • Example of how lay people understand risk, according to the author:
    • More likely to be concerned about a small risk to children than a big risk to adults who benefit from the technology (third sentence)
    • A study showed that lay people, given time and facts, understood risks of electromagnetic fields (last sentence)
  • Example of questionable methods used by the studies referenced in the first paragraph, according to the author:
    • Asking lay people to rank risks that are difficult to compare (fifth sentence)
  • Author's attitude: "should be" (first sentence); "a clear understanding about how the public perceives risk is needed" (first sentence); "are more likely to" (second sentence); "quite reasonable estimates" (fourth sentence); "they have substantial knowledge" (fourth sentence); "questionable methods" (fifth sentence); "they understood" (last sentence); "well enough" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Author's new approach (risk communicators should take into account people's knowledge/beliefs) and premise (study on radon)
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author's view:
    • Risk communication should be based on the principle that people process new information based on their existing knowledge (first sentence)
    • If people know nothing or are uninformed, messages about risk will probably be lost or misconstrued, so risk communicators need to know what people believe and tailor their message accordingly (second through last sentences)
  • Example of risk communicators' need to know what people believe, according to the author:
    • In a study about the risk of radon, subjects who were given the researchers' brochure on risks — which was based on interviews with the subjects — did better than a group that was given a brochure not based on such interviews (fifth through seventh sentences)
  • Author’s attitude: “should” (first sentence); “will find” (second sentence); “likely to” (third sentence); “need to know” (fourth sentence); “need was demonstrated” (fifth sentence); “careful preparation can help” (last sentence); “balanced material that tells people what they need to know” (last sentence)

Main Point: Risk communication should take into account people's existing knowledge and beliefs to help these people make informed decisions about risk.

Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 (P2, S1) - Author's response to risk communicators' old approach

P3, S8 - Author's new approach

Old Approach/New Approach: The Old Approach/New Approach Meta-Structure best fits this passage.* The author takes issue with the old approach to risk communication: assume that people overestimate new or exotic technological risks and try to convince them to ignore that risk (P1, S2). The author responds that this approach doesn't help people make informed decisions about risk (P2, S1) and underestimates people's relatively accurate understanding of risk (P2, S4). In its place, the author recommends a new approach: figure out what people already know about the new technologies and incorporate that into how you communicate the associated risks (P3, S8).

In an Old Approach/New Approach passage, the author’s opinion on the new approach is generally the main point. We can look for whether the author provides a conclusion that summarizes their opinion on the new approach. Fortunately, the author's last sentence summarizes their favorable opinion of the new approach. We used that as the basis for our anticipated main point.

*Several other Critical Meta-Structures could describe this passage as well. One could reasonably conclude that this passage uses a Criticizing a Viewpoint or Correcting the Record Meta-Structure. We could even argue that there’s a whiff of Resolving a Debate in this passage if we say the author is resolving the debate between technology developers and lay people.

Example: The most prominent minor Meta-Structure is the example. The author uses several examples throughout the passage, but the two most important are the studies in the second and third paragraphs. Expect one or two Minor Point or Argument Structure questions about those.

There are three viewpoints in this passage (risk communicators’, lay people’s, the author’s), so expect a few questions about these views. So, if you think you can remember each group’s views, you can really speed through these questions. To help us remember each view, let’s summarize each view into a bite-size chunk:

• Risk communicators: Persuade people that technology isn’t dangerous by showing they overestimate unfamiliar risks
• Lay people: Risk communicators try to brainwash people
• The author: Risk communication can help people make informed decisions if it factors in people’s preexisting beliefs