Question 12

Passage 2 offers a contrasting perspective on a practice that is criticized in Passage 1

Passage 2 presents a viewpoint that counteracts the concerns raised in Passage 1 regarding environmental scientists acting as advocates. While Passage 1 warns that advocacy can undermine scientific credibility, Passage 2 argues that environmental scientists have a duty to inform the public and can ethically advocate without compromising their integrity.

A) Passage 2 offers a contrasting perspective on a practice that is criticized in Passage 1

This option is correct as it accurately describes the dynamic between the two passages. Passage 1 expresses concern over the potential negative effects of scientists promoting their opinions as truth, while Passage 2 asserts that advocacy is not only permissible but necessary for scientists to effectively communicate their findings.

B) Passage 2 responds to a proposal that is advocated in Passage 1

This option is incorrect because Passage 1 does not propose advocacy; rather, it critiques the practice of scientists engaging in advocacy, suggesting it could harm their credibility. Passage 2 does not directly respond to a proposal but instead offers a different viewpoint.

C) Passage 2 provides evidence that contradicts a finding announced in Passage 1

This option is incorrect since neither passage announces findings in the traditional sense; they discuss opinions and perspectives. Passage 2 does not directly contradict any specific finding from Passage 1 but instead offers a different interpretation of the role of scientists.

D) Passage 2 agrees with and clarifies the general argument made in Passage 1

This option is incorrect because Passage 2 does not agree with the argument made in Passage 1. Instead, it challenges the notion that advocacy is detrimental, suggesting that it can enhance the credibility of scientists.

Conclusion

The correct answer, A, highlights the contrasting views presented in the passages regarding the role of environmental scientists as advocates. While Passage 1 warns against the dangers of advocacy potentially undermining scientific objectivity, Passage 2 emphasizes its ethical importance, illustrating a significant divergence in thought. This distinction is critical for understanding the ongoing debate within the field of environmental science.