Strongly supported. In P1, the author explains that some people see the role of risk communication as just an attempt to persuade people not to worry about certain risks. She then clarifies in P2 that the purpose should instead be to properly explain risks to people.

Unsupported. The concepts of promoting and justifying don’t come up in the passage. Perhaps we could say that the author wants risk communication to “promote” people’s ability to make informed decisions, but (A) captures that point better. And the author doesn’t argue against the idea of “justifying” anything.

Unsupported. Lay people are the intended audience of risk communication. The author never suggests experts as an audience.

Misdirection. The risk communicators mentioned in P1 want to allay people’s fears about exotic hazards. The author argues against that view, but she doesn’t suggest that they should just allay people’s fears about mundane hazards instead. She’s against the whole idea that risk communication should be about allaying fears or persuading people. She thinks it should be about educating people instead.

Anti-supported. This says the purpose of risk communication should be to persuade people to accept new technologies, not to address people’s ethical concerns. But the author is against that view on both counts. She says at the top of P2 that instead of focusing on persuasion, risk communication should be about educating people. And she recommends in P3 that risk communicators need to recognize and understand people’s beliefs about ethical issues.