7. The author of Passage 2 would most likely argue that, for an environmental scientist, "making value judgments" (Passage 1) is
Answer: C
For an environmental scientist, "making value judgments" is a civic duty.
The author of Passage 2 asserts that environmental scientists have an ethical obligation to advocate for their findings and inform the public about environmental issues. This perspective frames making value judgments not as a detriment, but as an essential responsibility of scientists in their role as advocates.
A) an ongoing concern
This option suggests that making value judgments is a persistent issue for environmental scientists. While there is concern about how these judgments might affect scientific credibility, the author of Passage 2 emphasizes the need for advocacy, indicating that they see value judgments as necessary rather than merely a concern.
B) a sign of political commitment
Labeling value judgments as a sign of political commitment implies that such judgments are primarily tied to political agendas. However, the author argues for the importance of advocacy in science, suggesting that these judgments stem from a duty to inform rather than a political stance.
C) a civic duty
The author of Passage 2 argues that environmental scientists ethically must advocate for the public by sharing their findings and conclusions. This aligns with the idea that making value judgments is a civic duty, as it reflects the responsibility of scientists to engage with the public on critical environmental issues.
D) an occupational hazard
Describing value judgments as an occupational hazard implies that they are a negative aspect of being an environmental scientist. In contrast, the author of Passage 2 views advocacy as a necessary part of their role, indicating that making value judgments is not a hazard but rather a crucial element of their professional responsibilities.
Conclusion
The correct answer, that making value judgments is a civic duty, is supported by the author’s argument that environmental scientists must engage in advocacy to inform the public. Other options fail to capture the author's positive framing of value judgments as an essential responsibility rather than a concern, commitment, or hazard. This emphasizes the importance of scientists actively participating in public discourse about environmental issues.