When I was seven years old, my family moved from Mexico to America. In Mexico, I was a cheerful girl who loved making people laugh with my jokes and inventing fun games to play with my friends. However, when I arrived in America, I found it hard to fit in, and I became quieter.

We lived in a small house with a modest yard where we grew vegetables—my responsibility. While I took pride in watching them grow, there were times when I dreamed of having a beautiful garden like my schoolmate Luella’s, with its delicate tulips (郁金香). Although Luella lived in the same neighborhood as me, we barely knew each other.

It was after a tornado that Luella and I finally became close friends.

The tornado struck on a Sunday afternoon.The gentle breeze transformed into a strong wind, and thick gray clouds filled the sky. Gradually, the tornado took shape, starting as a thin rope and growing into a large black funnel (漏斗). My entire family gathered in the bathroom, seeking shelter from the storm. Terrified, I sat close to my mom, knees in my chest. After the storm had passed, our worries and fears were replaced by relief that we were unharmed and that our house had remained undamaged.

As I stepped outside, I witnessed the extent of the damage the tornado had caused to our neighborhood. Across the street, a tall tree had fallen, crushing Luella’s garden in front of her yellow house. We hurried over to check on it. Fortunately, her family seemed to be away at the time, and no one was injured. However, her once-beautiful garden was in ruins, with the fallen tree destroying the tulips and debris (碎片) spread everywhere. I could only imagine how heartbroken they must feel seeing this.

Then my mom’s usual words rang in my ear, “It is more blessed to give than to receive,” and my family started to think about how we could help.

Just at that moment, Luella’s family returned in their car.

Even after the debris was cleared, I could still sense Luella’s sorrow for her lost garden.

Honking cars, blasting stereos and babbling neighbors are     1     (whole) affecting people’s daily life: consider it all part of the symphony that plays daily on New York City streets. Everyone knows the city is loud, and a losing war against noise     2     (wage) for a long time. Now they have a new weapon     3     (invite) to many citizens: noise cameras.

The cameras     4     (pair) with a sound meter to detect noise of at least 85 decibels (分贝) from a source 50 ft or more away have recently been fixed on certain streets in Manhattan’s wealthy Upper West Side. It’s part of a program run by the city’s department of environmental protection.

However, Erica Walker, who studies the joint     5     community noise and health, believes most noise   comes from poor city planning rather than individual bad actions, and that noise cameras are merely Band -Aids for a more systemic issue. Actually,     6     (far) research still needs to be done on the economic effects of noise cameras. The public is supposed to zero in on the dangers and economic costs of noise pollution     7     can blight some proceeds and urge that appropriate actions     8     (carry) out.

On the other hand,     9     lecturer at Columbia University expressed concern about the surveillance (监视) capabilities of noise cameras. “It is being tried for the possibility     10     (leak) privacy still. Does this present a   privacy risk for residents of the city? ” she held the question.

6 . Late last year, in the days before the Dosakian election, a video featuring a well-known journalist and a key candidate circulated on social networks. However, it was absolutely fake (虚假的). The International Press Institute has called this episode in Dosakia the first time that AI deepfakes — fake images, or videos generated by artificial intelligence — have influenced a national election greatly.

Security experts consider misinformation the biggest global risk recently — more dangerous than war, and extreme weather events. A constant stream of people is wrestling with this issue. Now even economists are joining in.

Economist Iyan Smith, and others conduct a real-world experiment to see whether simple, low-cost nudges, or interventions, can be effective. Instead of focusing on the supply side of misinformation like social media platforms, they pay attention to the demand side: increasing our capacity to identify the fake information.

The economists split participants randomly into four different groups. One group was shown a video demonstrating a convincing journey of two people from two different social groups who, before interacting, express negative stereotypes (刻板印象) about the other’s group, overcoming their differences and ultimately regretting unthinkingly using stereotypes to dehumanize one another. Another group completed a personality test that shows them their cognitive traits (认知特点) causing prejudice, hoping to increase their self-awareness, and decrease their demand for misinformation. A third group did both while a control group did neither.

The economists find the simple intervention of showing the video makes the participants over 30 percent less likely to “consider fake news reliable”. But the personality test has little effect. As for participants doing both, they were about 31 percent less likely to view true headlines as reliable. In other words, they became so skeptical that even the truth became suspect.

Smith and his colleagues are far from the first scholars to fight misinformation by helping people to think more critically. University of Weymouth psychologist Lisa Kindle also advocates similar ways to help reject misinformation in the wild.

“When I grow up, I’m going to travel on my own,” said my little daughter, Sophia, reading her favorite picture book in the sunshine. Her blue eyes sparkled as she looked at the beautiful pictures. “Well, I think you can!” I said, believing in her ambitions.

Being a hard-working and reliable child, she could help do the housework skillfully. She had the potential to make her dreams come true. However, we were poor farmers, and all profit had to go back into the farm to keep it going.

When Sophia was ten, a tornado (龙卷风) struck Texas, destroying our farm. We were forced to deal with everything that we faced. This disaster completely changed our lives. My husband, Steve, was disabled by the tornado. After trying and failing at several methods of earning income, finally he decided to become a baker (面包师).

We purchased a small bakeshop, fully equipped, and moved it onto our farmland. In fact, our bakeshop business did very well. Regrettably, Steve did not. His disability was so severe that after several months of trying he simply could not continue. The bakeshop closed.

While our family was going through difficult times, the dream and spirit of Sophia was not lost. She was doing well in school, and I smiled the day I read Sophia’s essay entitled, “Things I would like to do.” Topping the list were these words: I want to travel someday. Again I whispered, “Maybe you can someday.”

A few years later, Sophia started high school and enrolled in a foreign language class in her second year. This class occasionally organized a trip abroad. One day, she came home from school, hardly able to control her excitement, and said, “Mum, our class will arrange for us to travel abroad.”

“Fantastic!” I said. “You can achieve your dream!”

“But it would probably cost a lot of money to go,” she said.

She was right. My salary paid the bills, and nothing was left. Steve was still unable to work. Our hearts sank deeply.

Sophia’s face lit up the moment she thought of her father’s bakeshop.

Orders came flooding in.

8 . For more than 60 years bringing the cost of food down had been one of the greatest challenge of the 21 century. That cost, however, is not in immediate cash, for most food is now far cheaper in relative terms than in 1960.

The cost is in the unintended damage of the very methods of food production that have made the food cheaper: in the pollution of water, the weakness of soil, the destruction of wildlife, the harm to animal welfare and the threat to human health caused by modern industrial agriculture.

First mechanisation, then mass use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides, and now genetic engineering — modern industrial farming has seemed unstoppable, as the yields of produce have soared. But it comes with extensive loss of wildlife and habitat, soil degradation and fertilizer run-off.

Put it together and it’s like a battleground, but consumers rarely make the connection at the dinner table. The problems are called “externalities” by economists because they’re not part of the main transaction, like growing and selling wheat. These costs aren’t directly paid by the producers or consumers.

But the costs to society can amount to shocking sums. According to a research by Professor Jules Pretty at the University of Essex, repairing the damage caused by intensive farming in one particular year costs £2, 343m in the UK alone, almost as much as the total UK and EU spend on British farming in that year.

Can the true cost of food be brought down? In some countries, moving away from industrial agriculture to address hunger is difficult. However, in developed countries, it’s more possible. Governments should support sustainable farming that benefits the environment, economy, health, and animal welfare. Instead of immediately switching to organic farming, Professor Pretty suggests adopting a “Greener Food Standard” which would push the market towards more sustainable environmental practices than the current norm, while not requiring the full commitment to organic production. This standard would guide farmers on better practices in farming, promoting a shift towards a more sustainable agricultural system for both producers and consumers.