SECTION 1
Time35 minutes
27 Questions
Directions: Each passage in this section is followed by a group of questions to be answered on the basis of what is stated for implied in the passage. For some of the questions, more than one of the choices could conceivably answer the question However you jare to choose the best answer. that is, the response that most accurately1 and completely answers the question. and blacken the corresponding space on your answer sheet.
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 technological2 risk. and they can cite studies asserting that. although people apparently3 ignore mundane4 hazards that pose
significant danger, they get upset about exotic hazards that pose little chance of death or injury. Because some risk communicators take this persuasive5 stance, many lay people see risk communication as a euphemism6 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
subjective7 ethical8 concerns than are experts definitions Lay people for example tend to perceive a small risk to children as more significant than a large risk to consenting adults who benefit from the risk-creating technology. However, if asked to rank hazards
by the number of annual fatalities9, without reference to ethical judgments10, lay people provide quite reasonalbe estimates, demonstrating that they have substantial knowledge about many risks. Although some studies claim to demonstrate that lay people have inappropriate
concerns about exotic hazards. these studies often use questionable11 methods, such as asking lay people to rank risks that are hard to compare, In contrast, a recent study showed that when lay people were given the necessary facts and time they understood the 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 know the nature and
extent of recipients12 knowledge and beliefs in order to design messages that will not be dismissed or misinterpreted. This need was demonstrated in a research project concerning the public s level of knowledge about risks posed by the presence of radon
in the home. Researchers used open-ended interviews and questionnaires to determine what information should be included in their brochure on radon. Subjects who read the researchers brochure performed significantly better in understanding radon risks than significantly better in understanding radon risks than
did a control group who read a brochure that was written using a different approach by a government agency. Thus, careful preparation can help risk communicators to produce balanced material that tells people what they need to know to make decisions
相关文章推荐
