Question 12

Sentence 5 should be deleted from the passage because it contains irrelevant information.

Sentence 5 discusses how biomedical scientists gain prestige through diagnosing public health problems, which deviates from the main focus of environmental scientists' advocacy and credibility regarding environmental issues.

A) Sentence 3

Sentence 3 addresses the necessity for environmental scientists to inform the public about their work and conclusions, which is relevant to the passage's main argument about advocacy and ethics in science. Therefore, this sentence should not be deleted.

B) Sentence 5

Sentence 5 introduces the concept of biomedical scientists gaining prestige, which does not directly relate to the advocacy role of environmental scientists. This information distracts from the central theme of the passage, making it the most appropriate choice for deletion.

C) Sentence 7

Sentence 7 emphasizes the need for scientists to distinguish between the consensus of the scientific community and their personal opinions, which is crucial for understanding the ethical responsibilities of scientists. This sentence supports the main argument and should remain in the passage.

D) Sentence 9

Sentence 9 reinforces the overall message about the credibility of ecologists and their role in diagnosing environmental issues. It is pertinent to the discussion on advocacy and ethics, making it relevant and necessary for inclusion in the passage.

Conclusion

Sentence 5 is the only option that introduces an unrelated concept about biomedical scientists, detracting from the primary focus on environmental scientists' advocacy. The other sentences either directly support the argument or provide necessary context, confirming that they should remain in the passage. Thus, deleting Sentence 5 enhances the clarity and relevance of the text.