Section B Directions: There are 2 passages in this section. Each passage is followed by some questions or unfinished statements. For each of them there are four choices marked A, B, C and D. You should decide on the best choice. There is a phenomena ill the present. The average number of authors on scientific papers is skyrocketing. What is the main reason for it? That's partly because labs are bigger, problems are more complicated, and more different subspecialties are needed. But it's also because US government agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have started to promote 'team science'. As physics developed in the post-World War Ⅱ era, federal funds built expensive national facilities, and these served as surfaces on which collaborations could crystallize naturally. Yet multiple authorship--however good it may be in other ways presents for journals and for the institutions in which these authors work. For the journals, long lists of authors are hard to deal with in themselves. But those long lists give rise to more serious questions when something goes wrong with the paper. If there is research misconduct, should tile liability be joint and several, accruing to all authors? If not, then how should it be allocated among them? If there is an honest mistake in one part of the work but not in others, how should an evaluator aim his or her review? Various practical or impractical suggestions have emerged during the long-standing debate on this issue. One is that each author should provide, and the journal should then publish, an account of that author's particular contribution to the work. But a different view of the problem, and perhaps of the solution, comes as we get to university committee on appointments and promotions, which is where the authorship rubber really meets the road. Half a lifetime of involvement with this process has taught me how much authorship matters. I have watched committees attempting to decode sequences of names, agonize over whether a much cited paper was really the candidate's work or a coauthor's, and send back recommendations asking for more specificity about the division of responsibility. Problems of this kind change the argument, supporting the case for asking authors to define their own roles. After all, if quality judgments about individuals are to be made on the basis of their personal contributions, then the judges better know what they did. But if questions arise about the validity of the work as a whole, whether as challenges to its conduct or as evaluations of its influence in the field, a team is a team, and the members should share the credit or the blame. There is a tendency that scientific papers are ______.