The first paragraph critiques the stringent planetary protection policies advocated by a group of scientists who
aim to prevent biological contamination of celestial bodies. The author portrays these efforts as excessive,
particularly given the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life, and highlights the significant financial burden
these measures place on space agencies like NASA. Option A accurately reflects this scepticism, as the author
questions the need to sterilize planets where life has not been proven to exist.
Option B is incorrect because the author is not equivocal (i.e., ambiguous or undecided); instead, he expresses
a clear stance against these strict protocols. Option C is also inaccurate, as the author is not indifferent to
elitism but rather critiques the scientists’ restrictive approach. Similarly, Option D can be eliminated because
the author does not approve of NASA's spending on sterilization but views it as an unnecessary expense.