The 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. 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 company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years. But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reviews the company’s application, it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.

　　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.

　　[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 complicated 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 self-deception 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 becomes the community’s anyone, anywhere, anytime. Objective knowledge is the goal, not the starting point.

　　Once a discovery claim becomes public, the discoverer receives intellectual credit. But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. Within 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. As a discovery claim works it 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.