The phrase “unlikely to disagree + EXCEPT” can seem tricky to interpret. In simple terms, the question requires
us to find a statement the author will disagree with. Let us inspect the choices -
Option A: The author supports the proposal for zonal segregation as a reasonable compromise, balancing
scientific exploration with human settlement.
Option B: The author agrees that NASA’s earlier missions did not prioritise contamination but implies they
caused no significant harm.
Option C: This viewpoint reflects a cautious approach to space exploration. The author dismisses concerns
about hypothetical extraterrestrial life as speculative and prioritises human exploration and development over
minimising contamination. Therefore, he’s likely to disagree with this position.
Option D: In the passage, the author argues that the costs of maintaining strict planetary protection measures
are excessive and could undermine future exploration efforts. This is consistent with his stance.
Hence, Option C is the best choice.