内容发布更新时间 : 2024/5/16 2:26:38星期一 下面是文章的全部内容请认真阅读。

longstanding commitment to abide by the state’s strict nuclear regulations.

①Instead, the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not: challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court, as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee

nuclear power plant running. ②It’s a stunning move.

①The conflict has been surfacing since 2002, when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power

plant, an aging reactor in Vernon. ②As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale, the company agreed

to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012. ③In 2006, the state went a step further, requiring

that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval. ④Then, too, the company went along.

①Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments, or it simply didn’t foresee what

would happen next. ②A string of accidents, including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 2007 and the

discovery of an underground pipe system leakage, raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety

and Entergy’s management —especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe. ③

Enraged by Entergy’s behavior, the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.

①Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation, and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues. ②The legal issues

in the case are obscure: whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over

nuclear power, legal scholars say the Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers

extend. ③Certainly, there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state

sets its own rules. ④But had Entergy kept its word, that debate would be beside the point. ①The company 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. ②But there should be consequences. ③Permission to run a

nuclear plant is a public trust. ④Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States, including Pilgrim Nuclear

station in Plymouth. ⑤Pledging to run Pilgrim safely, the company has applied for federal permission to keep

it open for another 20 years. ⑥But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the company’s

application, it should keep in mind what promises from Entergy are worth. [442 words]

26. The phrase “reneging on”(Line 3, Para.1) is closest in meaning to [A] condemning. [B] reaffirming. [C] dishonoring. [D] securing.

27. By entering into the 2002 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. 72

[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

①In 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. ②But in the everyday

practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. ③We aim to be

objective, but we cannot escape the context of our unique life experience. ④Prior knowledge and interest

influence what we experience, what we think our experiences mean, and the subsequent actions we take. ⑤

Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.

①Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. ②Similar to newly staked mining

claims, they are full of potential. ③But it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance to transform a discovery

claim into a mature discovery. ④This is the credibility process, through which the individual

researcher’s me,

here, now becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime. ⑤Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.

①Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. ②But, unlike with

mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. ③Within the complex social structure of the

scientific community, researchers make discoveries; editors and reviewers act as gatekeepers by controlling the

publication process; other scientists use the new finding to suit their own purposes; and finally, the public

(including other scientists) receives the new discovery and possibly accompanying technology. ④ As a

discovery claim works its way through the community, the interaction and confrontation between shared and

competing beliefs about the science and the technology involved transforms an individual’s discovery claim into

the community’s credible discovery.

①Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. ②First, scientific work tends to focus on some

aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect. ③ Little reward accompanies

duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed. ④The goal is new-search, not re-search.

⑤Not 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. ⑥

Second, novelty itself frequently provokes disbelief. ⑦Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi

once described discovery as “seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” ⑧But

thinking what nobody else has thought and telling others what they have missed may not change their views. ⑨

Sometimes years are required for truly novel discovery claims to be accepted and appreciated. ①In the end, credibility “happens” to a discovery claim—a process that corresponds to what philosopher

Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind. ②“We reason together, challenge, revise, and

complete 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 complexity. [B] misconception and deceptiveness. [C] logicality and objectivity. [D] systematicness and regularity.

32. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that the credibility process requires [A] strict inspection. [B] shared efforts. 73

[C] individual wisdom. [D] persistent innovation.

33.Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after it [A] has attracted the attention of the general public. [B] has been examined by the scientific community. [C] has received recognition from editors and reviewers. [D] has been frequently quoted by peer scientists. 34. Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi would most likely agree that