A、The way of getting their input. B、The channel to release information. C、The selection of members. D、The range of their focus.

Now, listen to Part Two of the interview.
W: This task force has been in the news recently because there’s been some controversy lately surrounding some of their recommendations. Can you talk about some of these?
M: Well, I’ll just mention the one that got them the most attention, which was in 2009. They took a look at the use of mammography, a kind of X-ray, to detect breast cancer early, with an idea that you could intercept it and treat it and prevent death from breast cancer by having mammography.(6)What was controversial was that they were looking at a specific age group—women in their 40 s.(7)And this was hugely controversial, because there are many groups that promote early screening for breast cancer. And there are also medical groups who have advocated that screening in this age group is proper and early enough. So it was a controversial decision.
W: So in essence, the mammography study was simply telling women to use their best judgment before getting a possibly unnecessary treatment. Why was this so controversial?
M:(8)Some people have described what happened with the mammography screening decision as a perfect storm. For example, Mike McGinnis, who’s at the Institute of Medicine, called it that because he said it came at a time when national elections were occurring. There was a large and very vehement debate going on about the reform of the health insurance. And since then, they’ve been trying to get a better handle on how to communicate how they do their analyses.
W: So the task force recently made a decision about prostate exams. Can you tell me what was different about that?
M:(9)Actually, they came to a more negative conclusion, which was that the evidence actually shows that you should not recommend that procedure for anyone, that no healthy person should undergo that test. It should be reserved for people who are at risk of cancer for some other reason.
W: That sounds like a big change.
M: So anyway, the second case of reviewing prostate cancer screening also led to objections from those who treat people with prostate cancer. A bill has been introduced in Congress that would overhaul the task force by mandate from Congress, changing the makeup of the task force.
W: So were these recommendations made by the government followed?
M: Well, one of the consequences over the mammography decision was that the task force sort of changed the way it communicates information. They tried to make it much more comprehensible, easy to understand, clearer.(10)But they also changed their procedures for getting input from the outside. And they now invite the public to comment before they review a new issue, and after they’ve issued their draft decision. So they didn’t use to do that: they used to just consult with some educated peers, experienced peers, about what they should do. Now they’ve opened up their procedures a bit. So that’s one major change.
W: Well, Eliot Marshall, thanks for talking with me.
M: Well, thank you very much.
This is the end of Part Two of the interview.
Questions 6 to 10 are based on what you have just heard.
6. Why was the Preventive Service Task Force involved in a controversial issue in 2009?
7. What do we know about the Preventive Services Task Force’s decision in 2009?
8. According to the interview, what made the mammography screening decision "a perfect storm"?
9. What do we know about the prostate exams?
10. In which way has the Preventive Service Task Force made some changes?