7. The author of Passage 2 would most likely argue that, for an environmental scientist, 'making value judgments' (Passage 1) is
Answer: D
Making value judgments is an occupational hazard for environmental scientists.
The author of Passage 2 suggests that while environmental scientists should engage in advocacy and inform the public about their findings, they must also be cautious, indicating that making value judgments can be risky in their profession. This aligns with the idea that such judgments may lead to perceptions of bias or a loss of credibility.
A) an ongoing concern
This option reflects the worries expressed in Passage 1 about the potential negative implications of making value judgments. However, it does not capture the author's perspective in Passage 2, which emphasizes the necessity of advocacy as part of the scientist's role, suggesting that it is more than just a concern.
B) a sign of political commitment
While making value judgments may indeed reflect a political commitment, the author of Passage 2 focuses more on the ethical responsibility of scientists to inform the public rather than framing it in terms of politics. This option does not accurately represent the author's argument regarding the role of scientists.
C) a civic duty
Although the author acknowledges that environmental scientists have a responsibility to inform the public, characterizing making value judgments solely as a civic duty does not encompass the complexity of the author's argument. The emphasis is more on the balance between advocacy and scientific integrity rather than just duty.
D) an occupational hazard
This option accurately reflects the author's caution regarding the implications of making value judgments, as it implies that such actions carry risks that could affect a scientist's credibility. The author acknowledges the need for scientists to navigate their roles carefully, making this the most fitting interpretation of their stance.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the correct answer is that making value judgments is viewed as an occupational hazard, as it poses risks to the credibility of environmental scientists. The other options either misinterpret the nuanced argument presented in Passage 2 or fail to address the author's focus on the ethical responsibilities scientists have in their communication. Thus, D is the most appropriate choice in this context.