An insurance provider maintains a claims database where claims adjusters are adding new claims and updating existing claims everyday.  In the evening， a batch process is run to analyze data entered throughout the day.  To reduce costs， a shared storage so

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.Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process.First,scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect.Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed.The goal is new-search,not re-search.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 Azent-Gyorgyi 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 Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind.“We reason together,challenge,revise,and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason.”34.Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi would most likely agree that

A.scientific claims will survive challenges.
B.discoveries today inspire future research.
C.efforts to make discoveries are justified.
D.scientific work calls for a critical mind.

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.Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process.First,scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect.Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed.The goal is new-search,not re-search.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 Azent-Gyorgyi 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 Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind.“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.

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.Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process.First,scientific work tends to focus on some aspect of prevailing Knowledge that is viewed as incomplete or incorrect.Little reward accompanies duplication and confirmation of what is already known and believed.The goal is new-search,not re-search.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 Azent-Gyorgyi 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 Annette Baier has described as the commons of the mind.“We reason together,challenge,revise,and complete each other’s reasoning and each other’s conceptions of reason.”32.It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requires

A.strict inspection.
B.shared efforts.
C.individual wisdom.
D.persistent innovation.

Consumers are being confused and misled by the hodge-podge of environmental claims made by household products, according to a "green labeling" study published by Consumers International Friday.
Among the report's more outrageous findings--a German fertilizer described itself as "earthworm friendly" a brand of flour said it was "non-polluting" and a British toilet paper claimed to be "environmentally friendlier".
The study was written and researched by Britain's National Consumer Council (NCC) for lobby group Consumer International. It was funded by the German and Dutch governments and the European Commission.
"While many good and useful claims are being made, it is clear there is a long way to go in ensuring shoppers are adequately informed about the environmental impact of products they buy." said Consumers International director Anna Fielder.
The lO-country study surveyed product packaging in Britain, Western Europe, Scandinavia and the United States. It found that products sold in Germany and the United Kingdom made the most environmental claims on average.
The report focused on claims made by specific products, such as detergent insect sprays and by some garden products. It did not test the claims, but compared them to labeling guidelines set by the International Standards Organization (ISO) in September,1999.
Researchers documented claims of environmental friendliness made by about 2,000 products and found many too vague or too misleading to meet ISO standards.
"Many products had specially-designed labels to make them seem environmentally friendly, but in fact many of these symbols mean nothing." said report researcher Philip Page.
"Laundry detergents made the most number of claims with 158. Household cleaners were second with 145 separate claims, while paints were third on our list with 73. The high numbers show how very confusing it must be for consumers to sort the true from the misleading." he said.
The ISO labeling standards ban vague or misleading claims on product packaging, because terms such as "environmentally friendly" and "non-polluting" can not be verified. "What we are now pushing for is to have multinational corporations meet the standards set by the ISO." said Page.
According to the passage, the NCC found it outrageous that_________.

A. all the products surveyed claim to meet ISO standards
B. the claims made by products are often unclear or deceiving
C. consumers would believe many of the manufactures' claim
D. few products actually prove to be environment friendly