PrepTest 101

[lcid:3500] Prep Test 101 LSAT — Reading Comp — S1 Reading comp

Passage

Questions 1-6  .        To many developers of technologies that affect  . public health or the environment, "risk  . communication" Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

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.

Key Lines?

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

P3, S8 - Author's new approach

Meta-Structure?

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.

Last Thoughts?

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

Question prompt

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Science

Strategy Overview

Review the study mentioned in the first paragraph, if necessary, to anticipate key features of that study

Answer Anticipation

This question asks us to identify an example that illustrates the type of risk perception discussed in the studies mentioned in the first paragraph. To answer this, we simply have to use our notes or re-read the relevant part of the passage to review these studies and find the answer choice that presents a new situation that exemplifies the key characteristics of what we reviewed. The correct answer choice will likely present new information, so we shouldn't eliminate anything that seems unfamiliar. We should only eliminate answer choices that do not include key elements of the risk perception in this study.Upon review, we'll see that these studies show that people overestimate "exotic hazards" that pose little risk while underestimating "mundane hazards" that pose a lot of risk (P1, S2). Figuring out what "exotic" refers to requires us to contrast that term with "mundane." If something is mundane, it's familiar and ordinary. "Exotic," by contrast, would refer to something rare and extraordinary.So, let's look for an answer choice where someone thinks a relatively low-risk, rare, extraordinary thing is very dangerous, while something ordinary but high-risk isn't very dangerous.

Answer choices

  1. A
    A skydiver checks the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Is this an example of someone who thinks a relatively low-risk, rare, extraordinary thing is very dangerous while something ordinary but high-risk isn't very dangerous?

    No. This is someone treating something rare and high-risk (sky diving) with the care it warrants. We're looking for someone who overestimates the danger of something rare and low-risk. This person is properly rating the danger of something rare and high-risk.

  2. B
    A person decides to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Is this an example of someone who thinks a relatively low-risk, rare, extraordinary thing is very dangerous while something ordinary but high-risk isn't very dangerous?

    Nope. This is someone treating something ordinary and high-risk (smoking) with the care it warrants. We're looking for someone who ignores the danger of something ordinary and high-risk. This person isn't ignoring the danger smoking poses to himself or his family.

  3. C
    A homemaker who decides Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Is this an example of someone who thinks a relatively low-risk, rare, extraordinary thing is very dangerous while something ordinary but high-risk isn't very dangerous?

    Not quite. This person may be overestimating the danger of something rare and low-risk (radon) ... except this answer choice never tells us that radon is actually low-risk. Even if we reviewed the third paragraph's discussion of radon, we wouldn't learn whether radon is low-risk. Such a review is unnecessary, though. We're also looking for someone who overlooks the danger of something ordinary but high-risk. By prohibiting anyone from smoking inside her house, this person is treating something ordinary and high-risk (smoking) with the care it warrants.

  4. D
    A person who often Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) Is this an example of someone who thinks a relatively low-risk, rare, extraordinary thing is very dangerous while something ordinary but high-risk isn't very dangerous?

    Yes! This person clearly ignores the dangers involved with something ordinary but high-risk (weaving in and out of traffic at high speeds). This person also seems to overestimate the danger of something low-risk and rare (a meteorite hitting his house). This example exemplifies both sides of the risk perception described in the first paragraph's "studies," so we can select (D) and move on to the next question.

  5. E
    A group of townspeople Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Is this an example of someone who thinks a relatively low-risk, rare, extraordinary thing is very dangerous while something ordinary but high-risk isn't very dangerous?

    No. These people seem to think that something that is rare but high-risk is dangerous. We're looking for someone who ignores the danger of something ordinary and high-risk. So, this example doesn't conform to the risk perception described in the first paragraph's "studies."

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion