1 . It was a ruling that had consumers seething with anger and many a free trader crying foul. On November 20th the European Court of Justice decided that Tesco, a British supermarket chain, should not be allowed to import jeans made by America’s Levi Strauss from outside the European Union and sell them at cut-rate prices without getting permission first from the jeans maker. Ironically, the ruling is based on an EU trademark directive that was designed to protect local, not American, manufacturers from price dumping. The idea is that any brand-owning firm should be allowed to position its goods and segment its markets as it sees fit: Levi’s jeans, just like Gucci handbags, must be allowed to be expensive.
Levi Strauss persuaded the court that, by selling its jeans cheaply alongside soap powder and bananas, Tesco was destroying the image and so the value of its brands-which could only lead to less innovation and, in the long run, would reduce consumer choice. Consumer groups and Tesco say that Levi’s case is specious. The supermarket argues that it was just arbitraging the price differential between Levi’s jeans sold in America and Europe-a service performed a million times a day in financial markets, and one that has led to real benefits for consumers. Tesco has been selling some 15,000 pairs of Levi’s jeans a week, for about half the price they command in specialist stores approved by Levi Strauss. Christine Cross, Tesco’s head of global non-food sourcing, says the ruling risks “creating a Fortress Europe with a vengeance”.
The debate will rage on, and has implications well beyond casual clothes (Levi Strauss was joined in its lawsuit by Zino Davidoff, a perfume maker). The question at its heart is not whether brands need to control how they are sold to protect their image, but whether it is the job of the courts to help them do this. Gucci, an Italian clothes label whose image was being destroyed by loose licensing and over-exposure in discount stores, saved itself not by resorting to the courts but by ending contracts with third-party suppliers, controlling its distribution better and opening its own stores. It is now hard to find cut-price Gucci anywhere.
Brand experts argue that Levi Strauss, which has been losing market share to hipper rivals such as Diesel, is no longer strong enough to command premium prices. Left to market forces, so-so brands such as Levi’s might well lade away and be replaced by fresher labels. With the courts protecting its prices, Levi Strauss may hang on for longer. But no court can help to make it a great brand again.
1. Which of the following is not true according to Paragraph 1?| A．Consumers and free traders were very angry. |
| B．Only the Levi’s maker can decide the prices of the jeans. |
| C．The ruling has protected Levi’s from price dumping. |
| D．Levi’s jeans should be sold at a high price. |
| A．responsible for oneself | B．having too many doubts |
| C．not as it seems to be | D．raising misunderstanding |
| A．Gucci has successfully saved its own image. |
| B．It has changed its fate with its own effort. |
| C．Opening its own stores is the key to success. |
| D．It should be the court’s duty to save its image. |
| A．Hie rivals are competitive |
| B．it fails to command premium prices |
| C．market forces have their own rules |
| D．the court fails to give some help |
| A．biased | B．indifferent |
| C．puzzling | D．objective |
2 . Which is safer-staying at home, traveling to work on public transport, or working in the office? Surprisingly, each of these carries the same risk, which is very low. However, what about flying compared to working in the chemical industry? Unfortunately, the former is 65 times riskier than the latter! In fact, the accident rate of workers in the chemical industry is less than that of almost any of human activity, and almost as safe as staying at home.
The trouble with the chemical industry is that when things go wrong they often cause death to those living nearby. It is this that makes chemical accidents so newsworthy. Fortunately they are extremely rare. The most famous ones happened at Texas City (1947), Flixborough( 1974), Seveso (1976), Pemex (1984) and Bhopal (1984).
Some of these are always in the minds of the people even though the loss of life was small. No one died at Seveso, and only 28 workers at Flixborough. The worst accident of all was Bhopal, where up to 3,000 were killed. The Texas City explosion of fertilizer killed 552. The Pemex fire at a storage plant for natural gas in the suburbs of Mexico City took 542 lives, just a month before the unfortunate event at Bhopal.
Some experts have discussed these accidents and used each accident to illustrate a particular danger. Thus the Texas City explosion was caused by tons of ammonium nitrate (硝酸氨), which is safe unless stored in great quantity. The Flixborough fireball was the fault of management, which took risks to keep production going during essential repairs. The Seveso accident shows what happens if the local authorities lack knowledge of the danger on their doorstep. When the poisonous gas drifted over the town, local leaders were incapable of taking effective action. The Pemex fire was made worse by an overloaded site in an overcrowded suburb. The fire set off a chain reaction of exploding storage tanks. Yet, by a miracle, the two Largest tanks did not explode. Had these caught fire, then 3,000 strong rescue team and fire fighters would all have died.
1. Which of the following statements is true?| A．Working at the office is safer than staying at home. |
| B．Travelling to work on public transport is safer than working at the office. |
| C．Staying at home is safer than working in the chemical industry. |
| D．Working in the chemical industry is safer than traveling by air. |
| A．they are very rare |
| B．they often cause loss of life |
| C．they always occur in big cities |
| D．they arouse the interest of all the readers |
| A．natural gas, which can easily catch fire |
| B．fertilizer, which can’t be stored in a great quantity |
| C．poisonous substance, which can’t be used in overcrowded areas |
| D．fuel, which is stored in large tanks |
| A．natural gas stored in very large tanks is always safe |
| B．to avoid any accidents we should not repair the facilities in chemical industry |
| C．all these accidents could have been avoided or controlled if effective measures had been taken |
| D．the local authorities should not be concerned with the production of the chemical industry |
3 . In 2018 biologist Jann Vendetti published a paper that described the discovery of five species of non-native snails and slugs（蜗牛和鼻涕虫）in Southern California. The research would not have been possible without some 1,200 volunteers who uploaded nearly 10,000 photos to the SLIME project (Snails and Slugs Living in Metropolitan Environments) on an app called iNaturalist.
“So the entire existence of that paper is dependent upon these citizen scientists. How do you credit those people?” said Greg Pauly from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles. “There are some very specific requirements that a lot of journals and a lot of academic societies use. And those requirements largely would exclude nonprofessional scientists. And to me, that’s absurd.” That’s why Pauly, together with Vendetti, and several Australian biologists are arguing that criteria must change to recognize citizen scientists as authors on scientific journal articles.
They propose what they’re calling “group co-authorship.” The author list on Vendetti’s snail-and-slug paper includes the phrase “citizen science participants in SLIME.” But the phrase is absent when you look up the paper on Google Scholar. The publication software simply isn’t equipped to handle that kind of authorship, and so it erases the group’s vital contribution.
In another case, several years ago in Australia, a team of researchers tried to condition native lizards not to eat the poisonous cane toads. The only reason it was successful was because they partnered with the traditional landowners in northwestern Australia, and this group was called the Balanggarra Rangers.
Several journals flat-out refused to allow for the inclusion of the Rangers as group co-authors. Eventually, the researchers did convince the editors of some journals to allow it, but the group’s title was shortened, as if it was a first and last name, in online indexing software: “B. Rangers.”
The researchers argue that these errors and omissions don’t only make the critical contributions of a native community as invisible, they could also be seen as showing prejudice.
“If the person who had made that contribution was a graduate student who was trying to pursue a career in the sciences, we would all say, ‘Oh, of course that person should be a co-author’. But we don’t necessarily extend that same line of reasoning to citizen scientists.”
Allowing for group co-authorship is not a new idea. In 2004 the journal Nature published a paper titled “Initial Sequencing and Analysis of the Human Genome.” It listed as the sole author the “International Human Genome Sequencing Association.” “So let’s just choose this group-authorship model and turn it into group co-authorships. This really shouldn’t be that hard.”
1. What can be learned about Vendetti’s snail-and-slug paper?| A．It is the first paper to credit citizen scientists on the title page. |
| B．It describes snails and slugs living in metropolitan environments. |
| C．It is available on the publication software Google Scholar. |
| D．It includes 10,000 photos of snails and slugs in Southern California. |
| A．They are familiar with native animals and plants. |
| B．They make a living by hunting native lizards. |
| C．They are good business people. |
| D．They are world famous as B. Rangers. |
| A．To point out the omissions in the line of reasoning. |
| B．To highlight the contribution of a native community. |
| C．To argue against showing favor for a particular group. |
| D．To prove that not crediting citizen scientists is unfair. |
| A．expose the unfair practice in the scientific community |
| B．call for the wide recognition of group co-authorship |
| C．call on more people to become citizen scientists |
| D．explain the origin of the term group co-authorship |
4 . A Universal Greeting: Shaking Hands
A handshake seems to be a normal gesture. In fact, in the 9th century BC, an ancient site during the ruling of Shalmaneser III clearly shows two figures holding hands.The Iliad,usually dated to the 8th century BC, mentions that two characters “taking each other's hands and expressing their loyalty," Centuries later, Shakespeare once wrote of two characters who shook hands and swore to be brothers in the bookAs You Like It.Shaking hands seems to be an ancient custom whose roots have disappeared in the sands of time.
Historians who have studied ancient etiquette books note that the modern handshake did not appear until the middle of the 19th century, when it was considered a slightly inappropriate gesture that could only be used between friends. But what if Shakespeare had written about handshaking hundreds of years earlier?
According to author Torbjorn Lundmark in hisTales of Hi and Bye: Greeting and Parting Rituals Around the World,the problem comes in differing definitions of the handshake. The early handshakes mentioned above were part of making deals or peace; King Shalmaneser 111 referred to a rebellion in which he signed a treaty with the King of Babylon. In theIliad,Diomedes and Glaucus shook, hands when they realized they were guest-friends, and Diomedes declared: "Let's not try to kill each other." Shakespeare was similarly referencing settlement of a conflict.
The modern handshake as a form of greeting is harder to trace. As a Dutch sociologist Herman Roodenburg — the chief authority for the history of handshaking — wrote in a chapter of ananthologycalledA Cultural History of Gesture,“More than in any other field, that of the study of gesture is one in which the historian has to make the most of only a few clues”.
One of the earliest clues he cites is a 16th-century German translation of the French writer Rabelais'sGargantua and Pantagruel.When one character meets Gargantua, Rabelais writes, “He was greeted by countless hugs and countless good days." But according to Roodenburg, the 16th-century German translation added references to shaking hands.
A popular saying suggests that Cleland's statements against bowing were actually a wish to go back to a potentially traditional method of greeting in Europe. As the centuries progressed, handshaking was replaced by more hierarchical ways of greeting — like bowing. According to Roodenburg, handshaking survived in a few remote places, like in Dutch towns where some would use the gesture to make peace after disagreements. Around the same time, those who valued equality also made use of handshaking. Then, as the Continent's hierarchy was weakened, handshaking became a common practice among people of the same rank, as it is today.
1. Why does the author mention Shakespeare in the first two paragraphs?| A．To prove that the history of handshaking is hard to find. |
| B．To illustrate that handshaking is a very old custom. |
| C．To show readers that handshaking is common in fiction. |
| D．To explain the value of handshaking in communication. |
| A．The origin of handshaking as a form of greeting is easy to trace. |
| B．Citizens usually shake hands to show friendliness in Holland. |
| C．It was used only between friends and to reach an agreement. |
| D．It is a common practice between people of different social positions. |
| A．the science of mental ability | B．a collection of selected literary passages |
| C．a daily written record of experiences | D．all the living things of a particular region |
| A．The handshake has disappeared in some remote parts of the Netherlands. |
| B．Handshaking has different meanings in different European countries. |
| C．Most Europeans prefer to shake hands rather than bow. |
| D．Handshakes are now common between people of different positions. |
5 . I’m a talker. I am keen on debating, gossiping and teasing when I have people to talk to. Under lockdown, however, I’ve only had my partner, Peter.
We not only lived, worked and travelled together, we mostly socialized together, too. Under the first UK lockdown, our already closeness began to feel uncomfortable. While talking to Peter, I could see his attention drift.
For the first time in our 10 years together, we needed to be alone. I tried to manufacture this by going on walks on my own, but a short walk wasn’t doing the job. I had hiked in remote spaces all over the world but always in a pair or group — for safety reasons. I considered my options and hit upon an idea: the semi-solo hike.
Could we do a circular hike but walk in different directions? This would give us the space and peace of a solo hike — done by a person alone. It felt like a promising way out, and he agreed to give it a try.
We started with a four-mile loop (环路) from Reeth. At the start, we parted ways. At first, I was aware of how close we were, which lessened the appeal. As I gained ground, however, I found myself very much alone. I set my own pace, and I decided to take my time.
I sat on a rock and breathed out. That moment — with the weak sun through the clouds and the breeze blowing — felt extraordinary to me. I was born and raised in London and had never imagined leaving until I met an outdoorsman. Now, my former life as a city girl felt crazy. In remembering what I had gained, I felt the tension leave me. There, in the chilly air, I no longer needed to talk. The semi-solo hike gave us a shared experience with added room to breathe.
I didn’t see Peter on the way but reunited back where we started, both pleased.
The semi-solo hike is admittedly silly in theory, but for me it has been a lifeline. It has given me the gift of time alone and, in a year of constant closeness, the joy of reuniting.
1. What motivated the author to adopt the semi-solo hike?| A．Peter’s disinterest in her words. |
| B．Her habit of venturing into the wild. |
| C．The lack of privacy under lockdown. |
| D．Her desire to engage in outdoor exercise. |
| A．Their routes coincide sometimes during the hike. |
| B．They depart in a separate way to different destinations. |
| C．They hike in each other’s company throughout the journey. |
| D．They start and return to the same place by a different route. |
| A．Fearless and refreshed. | B．Free and relaxed. |
| C．Tense and depressed. | D．Upset and embarrassed. |
| A．An appropriate distance creates beauty. |
| B．There are more solutions than difficulties. |
| C．Access to nature is better than social circles. |
| D．Hiking helps improve interpersonal relationships. |
