联系婚姻的本质，结合现实情况分析21世纪人类婚姻关系的主要变化。

（20分）历史的进程存在普追规律，历史的大势又是“一”与“多”的综合，历史演进的普遍法则是通过诸多特殊道路得以体现的。结合所学知识，回答相关问题。

（1）新航路开辟后，英国、美国、德国各自通过怎样的方式走上资本主义道路？扼要分析这些道路产生的共同原因。（9分）

（2）指出20世纪六、七十年代，世界历史由“一”走向“多”在政治方面的表现，这种多极化趋势对国际格局产生了怎样的影响。（7分）

（3）1990年代以来，政治多极化和经济全球化趋势都在加强，中国不断的调整自己的内政与外交，积极融入这种趋势，试结合20世纪八九十年代以来的经济与外交的重大史实说明。（4分）

患者，男性，24岁，低热、盗汗、乏力6个月，咳嗽痰中带血，诊断考虑（）

A.慢性支气管炎

B.支气管扩张

C.肺结核

D.肺炎

E.结节病

如何做好周转仓库出版物的日常管理和养护？

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 can’y 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 lull 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 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.

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-Gy6rgyi 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.

It can be inferred from Paragraph 2 that credibility process requires（）

A. strict inspection

B. shared efforts

C. individual wisdom

D. persistent innovation

在货物短期存放的中转仓库或口岸仓库中，通常按（）进行分区分类。

A.货物种类和性质

B.仓储作业特点

C.不同货主

D.货物流向