Anti-supported. This is something that the risk communicators would be more likely to emphasize, not the author. The risk communicators claim that lay people get upset about exotic (i.e., new or strange) technologies. The author challenges the support for that claim, calling into question whether lay people really do have this tendency.

Unsupported. Neither the author nor the risk communicators offer any stance on whether lay people have this tendency. The author just notes that certain studies have asked lay people to make difficult comparisons between risks. There’s no indication that this is a general tendency among lay people.

Anti-supported. The author argues against the idea that lay people need to simply adopt the advice of others; she wants them to be able to make their own informed decisions and points out that lay people already “have substantial knowledge about many risks.” Meanwhile, the risk communicators in P1 think lay people are bad at gauging risk, and see their job as persuading people to relax and adopt the advice of others. So the author would be less likely to emphasize (C) than the risk communicators.

Anti-supported. The author wouldn’t emphasize this; she disagrees that it’s true. She says lay people are, in fact, able to accurately rank hazards this way. Meanwhile, the risk communicators in P1 think that lay people are bad at accurately gauging risks. So the author would be less likely to emphasize (D) than the risk communicators.

Strongly supported. The author argues that this is a key factor that risk communicators should understand and account for when communicating risks. Meanwhile, the risk communicators in P1 think that lay people’s risk perception is based on whether the risk is mundane or exotic—there’s no sign that they think risk perception is also affected by people’s values. So the author would be more likely to emphasize (E) than the risk communicators would.