（137-138共用题干）　　女性，25岁，低热，便秘腹泻交替3年，查：右下腹5cm

对辅助等电位连接线的截面要求有()。

A.当用于连接两个电气设备外露导电部分时，其截面不应小于其中较小的保护线截面

B.当用于连接电气设备与装置外可导电部分时，不应小于相应保护线截面的1/2

C.在任何情况下，其最小截面不应小于5m㎡(无机械保护时)

D.在任何情况下，其最小截面不应小于5.5m㎡(有机械保护时)

根据外汇管理的有关规定，下列选项中，属于境内机构资本项目外汇支出的有( )。

A．偿还外债利息

B．对外担保履约用汇

C．外商投资企业依法清算后的资金汇出

D．外商投资企业外方所得利润在境内再投资

男性，30岁。1周前感冒，2天后咯血伴浮肿、尿少（约300ml/天）。血压150/100mmHg。血红蛋白116g/L，血沉95mm/1h末。尿蛋白（+++），沉渣红细胞40～60/HP。血肌酐590mol/L，血尿素氮23mmol/L。B超示双肾大。肾活检证实为急进性肾炎Ⅰ型。其发病机理为（）

A.免疫复合物型

B.原位免疫复合物型

C.免疫复合物反应缺乏型

D.循环免疫复合物型

E.抗肾小球基底膜抗体型

中文核心期刊在接收作者投稿后均执行（）审稿流程。

A.三审一校制

B.不审不校制

C.三审三校制

D.三审两校制

She was French; he was English; they had just moved to London from Paris. When he found out about her affair, she begged for a reconciliation. He was more ruthless: the same afternoon, he filed for divorce in France, one of the stingiest jurisdictions in Europe for the non-earning spouse and where adultery affects the court’s ruling. Had she filed first in England her conduct would have been irrelevant, and she would have had a good chance of a large share of the marital assets, and even maintenance for life.

International divorce is full of such dramas and anomalies, so the natural response of policymakers is to try to make things simpler and more predictable. But the biggest attempt in recent years to do just that, in a European agreement called Rome Ⅲ, has just been shelved. Instead, several EU countries are now pressing ahead with their own harmonisation deal. Many wonder if it will work any better.

At issue is the vexed question of which country’s law applies to the break-up of a mixed marriage. The spouses may live long-term in a third country and be temporarily working in a fourth. The worst way to sort that out is with expensive legal battles in multiple jurisdictions.

The main principle at present is that the first court to be approached hears the case. Introduced in 2001, this practice has worked well in preventing international legal battles, but has made couples much more trigger-happy, because the spouse who hesitates in order to save a troubled marriage may lose a huge amount of money. Rome III aimed to remove the incentive to go to court quickly. Instead, courts in any EU country would automatically apply the local law that had chiefly governed the marriage. This approach is already in force in countries such as the Netherlands. A couple that moved there and sought divorce having spent most of the marriage in France, say, would find a Dutch court dividing assets and handling child custody according to French law.

That works fine among continental European countries where legal systems, based on Roman law, leave little role for precedent or the judge’s discretion. You can look up the rules on a website and apply them. But it is anathema in places such as England, where the system favours a thorough (and often expensive) investigation of the details of each case, and then lets judges decide according to previous cases and English law.

Another snag is that what may suit middle-class expatriates in Brussels (who just happened to be the people drafting Rome Ⅲ) may not suit, for example, a mixed marriage that has mainly been based in a country, perhaps not even an EU member, with" a sharply different divorce law. Swedish politicians don’t like the idea that their courts would be asked to enforce marriage laws based on, say, Islamic sharia.

The threat of vetoes from Sweden and like-minded countries has blocked Rome Ⅲ. But a group of nine countries, led by Spain and France, is going ahead. They are resorting to a provision in EU rules-never before invoked-called " enhanced co-operation" This sets a precedent for a "multi-speed’" Europe in which like-minded countries are allowed to move towards greater integration, rather than seeking a "big-bang" binding treaty that scoops up the willing and unwilling alike. Some countries worry that using enhanced co-operation will create unmanageable layers of complexity, with EU law replaced by multiple adhoc agreements.

The real lesson may be that Rome III was just too ambitious. A more modest but useful goal would be simply to clarify the factors that determine which court hears a divorce, and then let that court apply its own law. David Hodson, a British expert, proposes an international deal that would start by giving greatest weight to any prenuptial agreement, followed by long-term residency, and then take into account other factors such as nationality. That would then make it easier to end marriages amicably, with mediation and out-of-court agreement, rather than a race to start the beastly business of litigation.

According to the text, what might possibly be a reasonable course in determining which court hears a divorce.9（）

A. Prenuptial agreement-long-term residency-nationality

B. Long-term residency-birth place-nationality of the party who filed divorce

C. Prenuptial agreement-nationality-birth place

D. Court first hears the case-prenuptial agreement-long-term residency