【正文】 e will offer a precedentsetting test of how far those powers extend. Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules. But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the point. 2 The pany seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state. But there should be consequences. Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic trust. Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth. Pledging to run Pilgrim safely, the pany has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years. But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the pany’s application, it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth. 26. The phrase “reneging on”(Line ) is closest in meaning to [A] condemning. [B] reaffirming. [C] dishonoring. [D] securing. 27. By entering into the 2022 agreement, Entergy intended to [A] obtain protection from Vermont regulators. [B] seek favor from the federal legislature. [C] acquire an extension of its business license . [D] get permission to purchase a power plant. 28. According to Paragraph 4, Entergy seems to have problems with its [A] managerial practices. [B] technical innovativeness. [C] financial goals. [D] business vision 29. In the author’s view, the Vermont case will test *A+ Entergy’s capacity to fulfill all its promises. *B+ the mature of states’ patchwork regulations. [C] the federal authority over nuclear issues . *D+ the limits of states’ power over nuclear issues. 30. It can be inferred from the last paragraph that *A+ Entergy’s business elsewhere might be affected. [B] the authority of the NRC will be defied. [C] Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth application. *D+ Vermont’s reputation might be damaged. Text 3 In the idealized version of how science is done, facts about the world are waiting to be observed and collected by objective researchers who use the scientific method to carry out their work. But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and plicated route. We aim to be objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience. Prior knowledge and interest influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and selfdeception abound. Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. Similar to newly staked mining claims, they are full of potential. But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery claim into a mature discovery. This is the credibility process, through which the individual researcher’s me, here, now bees the munity’s anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point. Once a discovery claim bees public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the munity takes control of what happens next. Within the plex social structure of the scientific munity, researchers make discoveries。 editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the publication process。 and finally, the public (including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly acpanying technology. As a discovery claim works it through the munity, the interaction and confrontation between shared and peting beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into the munity’s credible discovery. Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. First, scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as inplete or incorrect. Little reward acpanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed. The goal is newsearch, not research. Not surprisingly, newly published discovery claims and credible discoveries that appear to be important and convincing will always be open to challenge and potential modification or refutation by future researchers. Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert AzentGyyi once described discovery as “seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” But thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views. Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated. In the end, credibility “happens” to a discovery claim – a process that corresponds to what philosopher Ante Baier has described as the mons of the mind. “We reason together, challenge, revise, and plete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason.” 31. According to the first paragraph, the process of discovery is characterized by its [A] uncertainty and plexity. [B] misconception and deceptiveness. [C] logicality and objectivity. [D] systematiess and regularity. 32. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requires [A] strict inspection. [B]shared efforts. [C] individual wisdom. [D]persistent innovation. 3 shows that a discovery claim bees credible after it [A] has attracted the attention of the general public. [B]has been examined by the scientific munity. [C] has received recognition from editors and reviewers. 3 [D]has been frequently quoted by peer scientists. 34. Albert SzentGy246。 now 36% do. In 2022 the number of unionists in America’s public sector passed that of their fellow members in the private sector. In Britain, more than half of publicsector workers but only about 15% of privatesector ones are unionized. There are three reasons f