Question

passage 2
i believe not only that, like any other citizens, environmental scientists can be advocates, but that they ethically must be advocates, at least to the extent of informing the general public about their work and conclusions. the credibility of ecologists has been enhanced as many of them have tried to diagnose environmental ills and suggest cures. after all, biomedical scientists can gain prestige by diagnosing public health problems and recommending solutions—and, interestingly, they arent accused of advocacy. but scientists should be careful to inform their audiences when they are representing a consensus of the knowledgeable scientific community and when they are expressing their own opinions about actions that should be taken.
from paul ehrlich, human natures, nature conservation, and environmental ethics ©2016 by american institute of biological sciences
question
the author of passage 2 suggests that environmental scientists compromise their credibility when they
○ disguise their personal opinions as scientific consensus
○ gather the opinions of their fellow scientists
○ make public announcements
○ withhold information about environmental problems

Explanation:

The passage states that environmental scientists should be careful to inform their audiences when they are representing a consensus of the knowledgeable scientific community and when they are expressing their own opinions. If they disguise personal opinions as scientific consensus, it would compromise their credibility. Gathering opinions of fellow scientists (which could be part of forming a consensus) is not a problem. Making public announcements (as long as they distinguish between consensus and personal opinion) is okay. Withholding information about environmental problems is not mentioned as related to credibility - the issue is about how they present information (consensus vs personal opinion).

Answer:

disguise their personal opinions as scientific consensus