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.
答案：A
答案句：But in the everyday practice of science, discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route. … Opportunities for misinterpretation, error, and self-deception abound.
参考译文：但在科学的日常实践中，发现常常遵循一条模糊而复杂的路径。……误解、错误和自我欺骗的机会比比皆是。
定位线索：题干“According to the first paragraph”→答案句取自第1段“discovery frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route”；文中“ambiguous and complicated”对应选项A“uncertainty and complexity”。
解析：题干问第一段中发现过程的特点。答案句直接指出发现“frequently follows an ambiguous and complicated route”，其中“ambiguous”和“complicated”分别对应选项A的“uncertainty”和“complexity”，属于同义改写。选项B“misconception and deceptiveness”虽在原文出现，但那是描述过程中存在的风险，而非过程本身的特点，属于偷换概念；选项C和D与原文“ambiguous and complicated”相反，无中生有。
32. It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requires
- A. strict inspection.
- B. shared efforts.
- C. individual wisdom.
- D. persistent innovation.
答案：B
答案句：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.
参考译文：但要将一个发现声明转变为成熟的发现，需要集体的审查和接受。这就是信誉过程，通过这个过程，个体研究者的“我、这里、现在”变成了科学共同体的“任何人、任何地方、任何时间”。
定位线索：题干“inferred from Paragraph 2”→答案句取自第2段“it takes collective scrutiny and acceptance”；文中“collective”对应选项B“shared efforts”。
解析：题干要求从第二段推断信誉过程需要什么。答案句明确说需要“collective scrutiny and acceptance”，即集体的审查和接受，“collective”与选项B“shared efforts”（共同努力）同义。选项A“strict inspection”只提到审查，遗漏了“acceptance”，范围缩小；选项C“individual wisdom”与原文“individual researcher's me”变成“community's anyone”相矛盾；选项D“persistent innovation”在第二段未提及，无中生有。
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.
答案：B
答案句：But, unlike with mining claims, the community takes control of what happens next. … 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 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.
参考译文：但与采矿权不同，科学共同体掌控着接下来发生的事情。……编辑和审稿人作为守门人控制出版过程；其他科学家利用新发现服务于自己的目的；最后，公众（包括其他科学家）接受新发现及可能伴随的技术。当一个发现声明在共同体中逐步推进时，关于相关科学和技术的共同信念与竞争信念之间的相互作用和对抗，将个体的发现声明转变为共同体的可信发现。
定位线索：题干“Paragraph 3 shows that a discovery claim becomes credible after it”→答案句取自第3段“the community takes control of what happens next”和“transforms an individual's discovery claim into the community's credible discovery”；文中“the community takes control”对应选项B“has been examined by the scientific community”。
解析：题干问发现声明何时变得可信。答案句指出共同体掌控后续过程，并通过编辑、审稿人、其他科学家和公众的参与，最终将个体声明转变为共同体的可信发现，即需要科学共同体的审查。选项B“has been examined by the scientific community”准确概括了这一过程。选项A“attracted the attention of the general public”只是过程的一部分，范围缩小；选项C“received recognition from editors and reviewers”只提到编辑和审稿人，遗漏了其他科学家和公众，范围缩小；选项D“frequently quoted by peer scientists”在原文未提及，无中生有。
34. Albert Szent-Györgyi 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.
答案：D
答案句：Nobel Laureate and physiologist Albert Szent-Györgyi 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.
参考译文：诺贝尔奖获得者、生理学家阿尔伯特·森特-哲尔吉曾将发现描述为“见众人之所见，思无人之所思”。但思考别人未曾想过的事情并告诉他人他们错过了什么，可能不会改变他们的观点。
定位线索：题干“Albert Szent-Györgyi would most likely agree”→答案句取自第4段“seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought”；文中“thinking what nobody has thought”对应选项D“scientific work calls for a critical mind”。
解析：题干问Szent-Györgyi最可能同意什么。他的名言强调发现需要“thinking what nobody has thought”，即独立思考、质疑常规，这正是批判性思维的表现，对应选项D“scientific work calls for a critical mind”。选项A“scientific claims will survive challenges”在原文未提及，无中生有；选项B“discoveries today inspire future research”与原文“may not change their views”不符，偷换概念；选项C“efforts to make discoveries are justified”过于宽泛，且原文未直接支持，答非所问。
35. Which of the following would be the best title of the text?
- A. Novelty as an Engine of Scientific Development.
- B. Collective Scrutiny in Scientific Discovery.
- C. Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science.
- D. Challenge to Credibility at the Gate to Science.
答案：C
答案句：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. … Consequently, discovery claims should be thought of as protoscience. … 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. … Two paradoxes exist throughout this credibility process. … 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.
参考译文：在科学如何进行的理想化版本中，关于世界的事实正等待着客观的研究者去观察和收集，这些研究者使用科学方法来开展他们的工作。但在科学的日常实践中，发现常常遵循一条模糊而复杂的路径。…… 因此，发现声明应被视为原始科学。…… 但需要集体审查和接受才能将发现声明转变为成熟的发现。这就是可信度过程，通过这个过程，个体研究者的“我、这里、现在”变成了科学共同体的“任何人、任何地方、任何时间”。…… 整个可信度过程中存在两个悖论。…… 最终，可信度“降临”到一项发现声明上——这一过程与哲学家安妮特·拜尔所描述的“心灵的公共领域”相对应。
定位线索：题干“best title”问最佳标题→全文围绕“credibility process”展开：首段提出科学实践复杂，第二段引出“credibility process”，第三段详述过程，第四段讲两个悖论，末段总结“credibility happens”；文中“credibility process”对应选项C“Credibility in Doing Science”。
解析：本题为主旨题，需概括全文。文章首段指出科学实践并非理想化，第二段提出“credibility process”概念，第三段描述该过程如何运作，第四段讨论其中的悖论，末段总结可信度最终形成。全文主线是“科学发现中可信度的演变过程”，选项C“Evolution of Credibility in Doing Science”准确概括。选项A“Novelty as an Engine”只涉及第四段部分内容，以偏概全；选项B“Collective Scrutiny”只是可信度过程的一个环节，范围过窄；选项D“Challenge to Credibility at the Gate”强调“门禁”挑战，但文章重点不是挑战，而是整个演变过程，偷换概念。