1 . The World Wildlife Fund for Nature - WWF - reports that nearly 3 billion animals were killed or displaced by Australia’s wildfires in 2019 and 2020. The number, reported in late July, was about three times higher than an earlier WWF estimate. “It ranks as one of the worst wildlife disasters in modern history,” said WWF - Australia Chief Executive officer Dermot O’ Gorman.
The WWF said it used different methods to estimate wildlife populations, including information from over 100, 000 studies. The scientists created models to estimate the number of creatures found in areas destroyed by fire. Project leader Lily Van Eeden from the University of Sydney said the research was the first continent - wide examination of animals affected by wildfires. “Other nations can build upon this research to improve understanding of bushfire impacts everywhere,” she said.
Those creatures that fled destroyed habitats faced a lack of food and shelter or the likelihood of moving into already occupied habitats. Researchers said the destruction will cause some species to become extinct before their existence is even recorded. “We don’t even know what we are losing,” said Chris Dickman, a professor of ecology at the University of Sydney. “These were species that were here and now they have gone. . . It’s almost too tragic to think about,” Dickman added.
The WWF report calls for improvements in habitat connectivity to help species escape from fires. It also calls for identifying and protecting habitat that was not burned to help save threatened species. An expanded report on the study is expected later this year.
The wildfires started in September 2019 and continued through March of this year. Scientists say the fires were fueled by higher than normal temperatures and years of drought in the Australian bush. The fires caused 34 human deaths and destroyed nearly 3, 000 homes. The WWF said that over the past year, it had raised money from donors to allocate emergency aid to the front lines of the fires to help injured and displaced wildlife.
1. What do we know about Australia’s wildfires in 2019 and 2020?| A．They were the worst disasters in history. |
| B．Over 3 billion animals died in the wildfires. |
| C．They caused more damage than calculated earlier. |
| D．Most animals moved to already occupied habitats. |
| A．Astonished. | B．Pained. | C．Annoyed. | D．Puzzled. |
| A．The wildfires last a whole year. |
| B．The wildfires were caused by the heat. |
| C．The wildfires also cause damages to humans. |
| D．The wildfires were soon under control with donations. |
| A．Humans shouldn’t occupy wildlife habitat. |
| B．Humans shouldn’t overestimate the bushfire. |
| C．We should raise money for wildlife protection. |
| D．We should develop the methods to prevent wildfires. |
2 . It is important to protect yourself from harmful rays. But if you think a high-factor sunscreen keeps you safe from harmful rays, you may be wrong. Research in this week’s Nature shows that while factor 50 reduces the number of melanomas(黑素瘤)and delays their occurrence, it can’t prevent them. Melanomas are the most aggressive skin cancers. You have a higher risk if you have red or blond hair, fair skin, blue or green eyes, or sunburn easily, or if a close relative has had one. Melanomas are more common if you have periodic intense exposure to the sun. Other skin cancers are increasingly likely with long-term exposure.
There is continuing debate as to how effective sunscreen is in reducing melanomas—the evidence is weaker than it is for preventing other types of skin cancer. A 2011 Australian study of 1,621 people found that people randomly selected to apply sunscreen daily had half the rate of melanomas of people who used cream as needed. A second study, comparing 1,167 people with melanomas to 1,101 who didn’t have the cancer, found that using sunscreen routinely, alongside other protection such as hats, long sleeves or staying in the shade, did give some protection. This study said other forms of sun protection—no sunscreen—seemed most beneficial. The study relied on people remembering what they had done over each decade of their lives, so it’s not entirely reliable. But it seems reasonable to think sunscreen gives people a false sense of security in the sun.
Many people also don’t use sunscreen properly applying insufficient amounts, failing to reapply after a couple of hours and staying in the sun too long. It is sunburn that is most worrying—recent research shows five episodes of sunburn in the teenage years increase the risk of all skin cancers.
The good news is that a combination of sunscreen and covering up can reduce melanoma rates, as shown by Australian figures from their slip-slop-slap campaign. So if there is a heat wave this summer, it would be best for us, too, to slip on a shirt, use sunscreen and slap on a hat.
1. What’s people’s common expectation of high-factor sunscreen?| A．It will protect them from sunburn. |
| B．It will keep their skin smooth and fair. |
| C．It will work for people of any skin color. |
| D．It will delay the occurrence of skin cancer. |
| A．Sunscreen can prevent all kinds of skin cancers. |
| B．The studies are based on direct observation of the subjects. |
| C．The studies may help people select the most effective sunscreen. |
| D．Daily application of sunscreen helps reduce the incidence of melanomas. |
| A．Staying in the shade whenever possible. |
| B．Using covering up instead of sunscreen. |
| C．Using both covering up and sunscreen. |
| D．Applying the right amount of sunscreen. |
| A．No Way to Stop Harmful Rays! |
| B．Does Sunscreen Prevent Skin Cancer? |
| C．Did You Use Sunscreen in the Right Way? |
| D．Skin Cancer—The Biggest Threat to Human Beings! |
3 . GPS has completely transformed how we get around. But other animals have long had their navigation (领航) systems built right in.
“We know their eyes are quite sensitive to polarized (偏振的) light and the sky has a particular pattern of polarized light relative to the position of the sun,” Barbara Webb, a researcher at the University of Edinburgh, says.
You can see polarized light firsthand if you take a pair of polarized sunglasses and spin them against the sky-the light passing through the glasses changes. Webb says the insects have polarization like that built into their many eyes. “You can think of it as having lots of sunglasses pointing in different directions.”
But Webb was curious whether there’s really enough information in the sky to give insects an accurate sense of direction. So her team built a sensor (传感器) modeled after a desert ant eye and put it under artificial light meant to simulate the sky. They then put that sensor into a model meant to model the brains of desert ants and other insects. And they found that with the insects’ sensing and processing equipment, they can likely sense direction down to just a couple degrees of error.
A system based on that of insects could someday be a cheap, low-energy choice to GPS. Insects have very tiny brains. A brain the size of a pinhead that’s using hardly any energy. And yet they’re still able to navigate better than we can with GPS, which is surprising. Webb is now working on building a robot that can use light to get its directions.
1. What can we learn from the text?| A．GPS is not accurate enough. |
| B．Insects have better eyes than humans. |
| C．Light changes passing through polarized sunglasses. |
| D．Insects have tiny brains that use no energy. |
| A．Pretend. | B．Cover. |
| C．Block. | D．See. |
| A．Insects can’t find their ways during nights. |
| B．Insects can find directions with little mistakes. |
| C．Insects always make mistakes finding directions. |
| D．Insects have sensing and processing equipment in their eyes. |
| A．Disappointing. | B．Interesting. |
| C．Amazing. | D．Confusing. |
4 . The reality TV wildlife edition has just come to a dramatic end. The world watched as the bears packed on pounds before they went into their den (兽穴) for the winter. Over the next few months, Fat Bear Week winner, 435 Holly, will go into hibernation (冬眠). Why do bears do this?
The mysteries around hibernating bears have attracted curious researchers for ages. What is hibernation, and what causes it? And probably most interestingly — could humans do this someday?
Dr. Kelly Drew, who studies hibernation, is one of the scientists consulting on a project funded by NASA, looking to put humans into hibernation for spaceflight. “For sending people to space, I think our first step is to perfect short-term hibernation-like periods in humans,” she says. “If we can figure this out, we can then try for longer periods.” We still have a long way to go before this science fiction dream becomes a reality, but several scientists around the country have been studying hibernation.
Cory Williams, at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, says, “A huge variety of mammals (哺乳动物) hibernate. However, hibernation in bears is different from that in small mammals…their body temperature only drops a few degrees and they don’t experience periodic rewarming.” In general, mammals with lower body temperatures during hibernation awaken every few days to raise their body temperature, or eat a bit. Bears do not emerge for any of these activities. Instead, they live off the fat they have collected during the summer and autumn months and even recycle their metabolic (新陈代谢的) waste.
At the moment, the study of hibernation has and continues to contribute greatly to applications in the human world. For example, bears are able to maintain their bone mass during hibernation, and understanding this could help advance the study of treating people with weak bones. Perhaps one day, it will be the key to sending humans far off into space too.
1. Why is 435 Holly mentioned in Paragraph 1?| A．To show the popularity of Fat Bear Week. | B．To introduce the topic of hibernation. |
| C．To call for the protection of bears. | D．To advertise reality TV. |
| A．They produce new body fat. |
| B．They lower their body temperature greatly. |
| C．They sleep through the whole winter. |
| D．They rewarm themselves regularly. |
| A．The new findings about hibernation. | B．The significance of studying hibernation. |
| C．The ways bears maintain their bone mass. | D．The barriers to sending humans into space. |
| A．What could bears and astronauts have in common? |
| B．What effects does hibernation have on bears? |
| C．Why do bears need to go into hibernation? |
| D．How do humans and bears get along? |
5 . Although being the second-smallest independent state, only 0.7 square mile in the world, Monaco benefits from an excellent climate and beautiful settings between the Mediterranean Sea and France. Monte Carlo is its only city and capital.
Attractions
Every May Monaco has car racing events, such as the Monaco Grand Prix. In the main harbour, expensive yachts and boats make Monaco a good destination for the rich and famous. Monaco's pleasant climate and environment as well as the absence of taxes contribute to this situation. Tourism contributes about 25% of the government income. Museums, zoos and gardens are tourist attractions, so are the beaches, the royal palace and the opera house.
History
Monaco was built by the Phoenicians who occupied the area from the 10th to the 5th century B.C. The House of Grimaldi has ruled Monaco since 1297 and the first Prince Rainier got the throne (王位) in 1304.Later Monaco was under the protection of Rome, France, Spain, and Sardinia. In 1612 when Honore ll was granted the title of prince by the French crown, he signed a treaty of friendship with France, and the country has remained independent from that time on.
People and Religion
Half of the residents of Monaco are the French with many Americans, Italians, the British and Belgians making up the other half. Although the official religion of Monaco is Roman Catholic, there is religious freedom in this French-speaking country.
Government
Prince Rainier Ill rules the country with a minister of state who is French. A National Council with 18 members must approve laws. Its legend was further spread by the marriage of Prince Rainier II to the American actress Grace Kelly in 1956.
1. Which of the following is true about Monaco according to the text?| A．It is on the Mediterranean Sea. |
| B．It has two cities including its capital. |
| C．It is the smallest country in the world. |
| D．Its economy mainly depends on agriculture. |
| A．France | B．Spain |
| C．Sardinia | D．Rome |
| A．The residents of Monaco are mainly Americans. |
| B．Prince Rainier II married an American actress. |
| C．Half of the residents in Monaco speak English. |
| D．The minister of Monaco was appointed by the prince. |
6 . For many parents, raising a teenager is like fighting a long war, but years go by without any clear winner. Like a border conflict between neighboring countries, the parent-teen war is about boundaries: Where is the line between what I control and what you do?
Both sides want peace, but neither feels it has any power to stop the conflict. In part, this is because neither is willing to admit any responsibility for starting it. From the parents’ point of view, the only cause of their fight is their adolescents’ complete unreasonableness. And of course, the teens see it in exactly the same way, except oppositely. Both feel trapped.
In this article, I’ll describe three no-win situations that commonly arise between teens and parents and then suggest some ways out of the trap. The first no-win situation is quarrels over unimportant things. Examples include the color of the teen’s hair, the cleanliness of the bedroom, the preferred style of clothing, the child’s failure to eat a good breakfast before school, or his tendency to sleep until noon on the weekends. Second, blaming. The goal of a blaming battle is to make the other admit that his bad attitude is the reason why everything goes wrong. Third, needing to be right. It doesn’t matter what the topic is—politics, the laws of physics, or the proper way to break an egg—the point of these arguments is to prove that you are right and the other person is wrong, for both wish to be considered an authority—someone who actually knows something—and therefore to command respect. Unfortunately, as long as parents and teens continue to assume that they know more than the other, they’ll continue to fight these battles forever and never make any real progress.
1. Why does the author compare the parent-teen war to a border conflict?| A．Both are about where to draw the line. |
| B．Both can continue for generations. |
| C．Neither has any clear winner. |
| D．Neither can be put to an end. |
| A．The teens tend to have a full understanding of their parents. |
| B．The teens agree with their parents on the cause of the conflict. |
| C．The teens cause their parents of misleading them. |
| D．The teens blame their parents for starting the conflict. |
| A．give orders to the other |
| B．know more than the other |
| C．gain respect from the other |
| D．get the other to behave properly |
| A．Solutions for the parent-teen problems. |
| B．Examples of the parent-teen war. |
| C．Causes for the parent-teen conflicts. |
| D．Future of the parent-teen relationship. |
7 . On my fourth day in a self-driving car, I finally felt comfortable enough to let it stop itself. Before then, Id allowed the car- a Volvo S90 sedan to control the direction, with my hands still on the wheel, and to adjust speed in traffic. By Day 4, I was ready to make a jump into the future.
With the car traveling on a busy road, I activated the driverless mode. Soon, a traffic light turned red. For a split second, I prepared to get on the brakes. There was no need. The cameras and computers in the Volvo recognized the traffic conditions and smoothly began applying the brake.
If you're anything like most people, you're familiar with this anxiety. Almost 80 percent of Americans fear traveling in a self-driving car, a recent survey found.
Researchers at the University of Chicago have conducted some clever experiments studying the phenomenon. They asked participants to complete tasks and compared their performance with a computer system's. After the computer made a mistake, people were unwilling to use it again. After the people made mistakes, their self-confidence wouldn't change. It didn't matter that the human beings made more mistakes than the computer. So it is with driving. More than 37,000 Americans died in crashes last year, most from human error. The death count from cars goes beyond that from guns. So if you are shocked and angry by guns and want things to change, you should feel the same about car crashes.
Technology creates an opportunity to save lives. Computers don't get drunk or distracted by text messages, and they don't have blind spots. Just look at commercial airlines: Automation has helped all but get rid of deadly crashes among American air carriers. The last one happened in 2009.
The technology for self-driving cars still isn't good enough. But it is improving rapidly. Within a few years, many cars will have advanced crash-avoidance systems and driving will be revolutionized sooner than many people now understand.
1. How does the author introduce the topic?| A．By offering a piece of news. | B．By describing an experience. |
| C．By giving background information. | D．By introducing a latest car. |
| A．The participants lost self-confidence after making mistakes. |
| B．The participants would ignore the mistakes made by the computer. |
| C．Car crashes is no less shocking than gun incidents. |
| D．The death count from cars is the same as that from guns. |
| A．to advertise for the commercial airlines. | B．to assess the security of driverless cars. |
| C．to find fault with computers. | D．to prove the advantage of technology. |
| A．Favorable. | B．Indifferent. |
| C．Skeptical. | D．Concerned. |
8 . According to a recent study in the Journal of Consumer Research, both the size and consumption habits of our eating companions can influence our food intake. And contrary to existing research that says you should avoid eating with heavier people who order large portions(份), it's the beanpoles with big appetites you really need to avoid.
To test the effect of social influence on eating habits, the researchers conducted two experiments. In the first, 95 undergraduate women were individually invited into a lab to ostensibly(表面上)participate in a study about movie viewership. Before the film began, each woman was asked to help herself to a snack. An actor hired by the researchers grabbed her food first. In her natural state, the actor weighed 105 pounds. But in half the cases she wore a specially designed fat suit which increased her weight to 180 pounds.
Both the fat and thin versions of the actor took a large amount of food. The participants followed suit, taking more food than they normally would have. However, they took significantly more when the actor was thin.
For the second test, in one case the thin actor took two pieces of candy from the snack bowls. In the other case, she took 30 pieces. The results were similar to the first test: the participants followed suit but took significantly more candy when the thin actor took 30 pieces.
The tests show that the social environment is extremely influential when we're making decisions. If this fellow participant is going to eat more, so will I. Call it the “I’ll have what she's having” effect. However, we'll adjust the influence. If an overweight person is having a large portion, I'll hold back a bit because I see the results of his eating habits. But if a thin person eats a lot, I'll follow suit. If he can eat much and keep slim, why can't I?
1. What is the recent study mainly about?| A．Food safety. | B．Movie viewership. |
| C．Consumer demand. | D．Eating behavior. |
| A．Big eaters. | B．Overweight persons. |
| C．Picky eaters. | D．Tall thin persons. |
| A．To see how she would affect the participants. |
| B．To test if the participants could recognize her. |
| C．To find out what she would do in the two tests. |
| D．To study why she could keep her weight down. |
| A．How hungry we are. | B．How slim we want to be. |
| C．How we perceive others. | D．How we feel about the food. |
9 . The executive committee of the World Anti-Doping Agency(WADA，世界反兴奋剂组织) agreed to a series of tough measures against Russia on December 9. According to The Washington Post, it is the most severe punishment to date in the years-long Russian doping saga (兴奋剂事件).
Russia is prohibited from participating in all major international sports events in the next four years, including the 2020 Tokyo Olympics, the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, and the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar. The country will also be banned from hosting any major sports events.
The reason for such severe punishment is that WADA believes the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) did not actively cooperate with its investigation. WADA also claims that the sample data submitted by the Moscow laboratory in January 2019 was incomplete and untrue. A great deal of data was deleted and changed.
Under the four-year ban, the Russian flag and anthem (国歌) are also prohibited from being displayed at major events. Only ''clean'' Russian athletes will be allowed to participate in international competitions under a neutral flag if they can provide the necessary proof.
Several countries and organizations have already upheld (支持) WADA's decision. The International Olympic Committee states that the decision is binding (有约束力的) and will also support the ruling (裁决) of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (国际体育仲裁法庭) in the future if Russia appeals. Norway said it would refuse Russia's participation in the Ski World Cup in2023.
The head of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency said the ruling against Russia was “too moderate” and that the failure to ban Russian athletes from participating in any sports event was a blow to international sports. Although RUSADA will have three weeks to appeal against WADA's decision, according to the reaction of other organizations, there is a high possibility that the penalties will be carried out.
Russian president Vladimir Putin said the country had every reason to appeal against the decision. ''The key thing, and everyone is in agreement here, any punishment has to be individual, has to be targeted based on what a particular individual has done. We can't have collective punishment, '' Putin stressed. ''We cannot punish people who have nothing to do what so ever with violations.''
Despite the ban, Russia will be able to compete at Euro 2020 — in which St. Petersburg will be a host city — as European football’s governing body UEFA is not defined as a ''major event organization. ''
1. What does the underlined word prohibit in paragraph 2 mean?| A．To forbid. | B．To force. | C．To encourage. | D．To urge. |
| A．In 2021 Russian can host some major sports events. |
| B．Under the ban, the Russian flag and anthem can be displayed at major events. |
| C．No Russian athletes will be allowed to participate in international competitions. |
| D．Russian president Vladimir Putin is against the punishment. |
| A．In a guidebook. | B．In a madcine journal. |
| C．In a science news report. | D．In a sports news report. |
| A．Supportive. | B．Objective. | C．Indifferent. | D．Puzzled. |
10 . Just how much does the Constitution （宪法）protect your digital data? The Supreme Court will now consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phone without a warrant （(授权令) if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.
California has asked the justices to restore the practice that the police may search through the contents of suspects' smartphones at the time of their arrest. It is hard, the state says, for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies .
The justices would be careless if they followed California's advice. They should start by rejecting California's weak argument that exploring the contents of a smart phone is similar to say, going through a suspect's wallet. The court has ruled that police don't offend against the Fourth Amendment（修正案） when they go through the wallet, of an arrestee without a warrant. In fact, exploring one's smartphone is more like entering his or her home. A smartphone may contain an arrestee's reading history, financial history, medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence.
Americans should take steps to protect their own digital privacy and should avoid putting important information in smartphones. But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life. Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches.
In many cases, it would not be very difficult for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents. They could still trump （打出王牌）the Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe and dangerous circumstances, such as the threat of immediate harm, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not deleted or altered while a warrant is on the way. The justices, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more flexibility.
But the justices should not swallow California's argument whole. New technology sometimes demands fresh applications of the Constitution's protections. Orin Kerr, a law professor, compares the explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a digital necessity of life in the 20th. At that time, the justices had to explain new rules for the new personal domain （领域）of cars. Similarly, the justices must sort out how the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution applies to digital information now.
1. The author's attitude toward California's argument is one of ________| A．disapproval. | B．tolerance. |
| C．indifference. | D．cautiousness. |
| A．scanning one's correspondences. | B．handing one's historical records. |
| C．getting into one's residence. | D．going through one's wallet. |
| A．citizens' privacy is not effectively protected. |
| B．principles are hard to be clearly expressed. |
| C．phones are used to store sensitive information. |
| D．the court is giving police less room for action. |
| A．the Constitution should be implemented flexibly. |
| B．Principles of the Constitution should never be changed. |
| C．California's argument violates principles of the Constitution. |
| D．New technology requires reinterpretation of the Constitution |
