1 . Halloween candy could be in for a California big change. State lawmakers last month passed the California Food Safety Act, which bans four materials found in popular snacks and packaged foods - including candy corm and other Halloween treats. Set to take effect in 2027, the ban will lead candy and food producers to change their formulas for products sold both in California and elsewhere around the country.
The law bans the production and sale of some materials, which are used in processed foods including kinds of instant potatoes and sodas, as well as candies. The additives (添加剂) have been linked to increased risks of cancer and nervous system problems, according to the Environmental Working Group, which started the act, and are already banned in many other countries.
Food producers and their lobbyists (说客) opposed the law, arguing the conclusion that the four additives are unhealthy should be made by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). They thought that evaluating the safety of food materials and additives should rely on the scientific accuracy of the FDA. But food safety advocates say the FDA has moved far too slowly in regulating food chemicals. It’s unacceptable that the U.S. is so far behind the rest of the world when it comes to food safety.
California’s act made headlines this year as a “Skittles (彩虹糖) ban” that would wipe popular candies off California shelves. But supporters of the act said the intention is simply to require changes in the materials, as has already happened in Europe. Perhaps the most standing-out material on California’s banned list is red dye No. 3. It is allowed only in candied and cocktail cherries in the European Union but more than 3,000 products contain the chemical in the U. S. The list includes items like frosted pretzels and scores of brand-name candies such as Peeps and Pez. It also includes items like fruit cocktail cups, protein drinks, and yogurts.
1. How will Halloween candy in California change?| A．It will change its recipes. | B．It will transform its shapes. |
| C．It will move out of California. | D．It will disappear completely. |
| A．FDA’s conclusion on the materials is wrong. |
| B．Four materials are allowed all over the world. |
| C．The materials’ safety needs to be reassessed. |
| D．FDA moves too fast in regulating food chemicals. |
| A．They demand a complete ban on Skittles. |
| B．They wish the “Skittles ban” to be headlines. |
| C．They want to apply European policies to Skittles. |
| D．They hope more red dye No. 3 is used in Skittles. |
| A．California candy ban. | B．Food safety in California. |
| C．The responsibility of FDA. | D．Change of Halloween Candy. |
2 . This question has fascinated behavioural scientists for decades: why do we give money to charity?
The explanations for charitable giving fall into three broad categories, from the purely altruisic (利他的)— I donate because I value the social good done by the charity. The “impurely” altruistic— I donate because I extract value from knowing I contribute to the social good for the charity. And the not-at-all altruistic— I donate because I want to show off to potential mates how rich I am.
But are these motives strong enough to enable people to donate as much as they would want to? Most people support charities in one way or another, but often we struggle to make donations as often as we think we should. Although many people would like to leave a gift to charity in their will, they forget about it when the time comes.
Many people are also aware that they should donate to the causes that have the highest impact, but facts and figures are less attractive than narratives. In a series of experiments, it was found that people are much more responsive to charitable pleas that feature a single, identifiable beneficiary(受益者), than they are to statistical information about the scale of the problem being faced. When it comes to charitable giving, we are often ruled by our hearts and not our heads.
The good news is that charitable giving is contagious—seeing others give makes an individual more likely to give and gentle encouragement from an important person in your life can also make a big difference to your donation decisions— more than quadrupling them in our recent study. Habit also plays a part— in three recent experiments those who volunteered before were more likely to do donate their time than those who had not volunteered before.
In summary, behavioural science identifies a range of factors that influence our donations, and can help us to keep giving in the longer term. This is great news not just for charities, but also for donors.
1. What can we learn about people who do charitable giving?| A．Most people support charity as often as they think they should. |
| B．Some people don’t want to leave a gift to charity until the time comes. |
| C．Those who donate because they can gain an advantage are purely altruistic. |
| D．Some people send money to charity simply to tell others they are wealthy. |
| A．Not revealing the names of the donors. |
| B．Showing figures about the seriousness of the problem. |
| C．Telling stories that feature a single, recognizable beneficiary. |
| D．Reminding people to write down what to donate in the will in advance. |
| A．People will learn from others and follow the suit. |
| B．Many people are familiar with charitable giving. |
| C．Charitable giving helps the beneficiary in all aspects. |
| D．Charitable giving can bring a lot of benefits to donors. |
| A．To persuade more people to donate. |
| B．To explain the science behind why people donate. |
| C．To criticize some false charitable giving behaviours. |
| D．To explore approaches to making people donate more. |
3 . Consider the following statement: “My husband bought me a pink Lamborghini...” The correct way to finish the sentence, according to some, is not showing appreciation or acting excited, but to complain about the pricy gift. If you say, “The color is so ugly, men have such bad taste!” Congratulations, you have mastered the “Versailles (凡尔赛) literature.”
The term has nothing to do with the French palace nor with literature. It came from the Japanese manga series “The Rose of Versailles” and was coined by a Chinese influencer earlier this year. This new kind of bragging (吹嘘) is called humblebragging, the psychology behind which is to be recognized for one's successes and be liked by others at the same time. “The humblebragger recognizes that it's hard to be liked and be a showoff at the same time,” said psychologist Dr. Susan KraussWhitbourne at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
In an article titled “Why people hate humblebragging” published in Psychology Today, Whitbourne noted that the humblebrag is a “strategy in pursuit of respect” because it draws attention to one's accomplishments, but in a roundabout (迂回的) fashion.
However, studies on social media users show that humblebragging, as a self-promotion strategy does not work. In the essay, “Humblebragging: A distinct-and ineffective-self-presentation strategy,” researcher Ovul Sezer concluded from his research that humblebraggers are perceived more negatively than straight braggers due to the former's insincerity. “The critical factor telling these strategies was sincerity. People don't like braggers, but they at least see them as more sincere than humblebraggers.”
“So, next time if you hear ‘My husband bought me a pink Lamborghini. The color is so ugly, men have such bad taste!’. Just pretend you don’t get whatever it is they try to show off.” a Zhihu user advised others on how to respond to a “pretentious narcissist”, “Respond with genuine sympathy for their complaint.”
1. Which of the following can replace the example in Paragraph 1?| A．“I didn’t even have one look at my paper. I’m so over.” |
| B．“I have eaten nothing today, but I'm heavier than yesterday.” |
| C．“My husband bought me another Chanel purse. I love it so much.” |
| D．“I don’t even remember buying a house. My memory is really failing with age.” |
| A．Because they're really successful. |
| B．Because they want to show their complaint. |
| C．Because they want to be liked while bragging. |
| D．Because they always want to be the center of the topic. |
| A．Humblebraggers are dishonest |
| B．Straight braggers are popular with us. |
| C．Straight braggers are cleverer than humblebraggers. |
| D．Humblebraggers' insincerity accounts for their unpopularity. |
| A．How to avoid humblebragging. | B．Who might be a humblebragger. |
| C．How to fight a humblebragger back. | D．What might hurt a humblebragger. |
4 . More than one-third of the world’s food is wasted or thrown away, most of which ends up in landfills, producing very large amounts of planet-warming greenhouse gases. Now, many studies show that it is becoming harder to grow enough food to feed an increasing population due to climate change and soil degradation.
But one of the most promising and simplest solutions lies in the problem itself: this wasted food — if composted (堆肥) — could slow climate change and improve soil quality. Higher-quality soil also continues to absorb more carbon from the atmosphere, helping to improve plants and contributing further to fighting climate change. Returning one ton of organic matter to each hectare of soil would increase the production of cereal crops each year in Africa, Asia and South America by millions of tons.
While it is true that people can compost in their yards, community gardens, or even on their kitchen counters, larger-scale efforts, including infrastructure (基础设施) and incentives (激励) for consumers, would take it to the next level. Imagine if consumers could just leave unwanted food in a roadside bin for pickup, or drop it off at a local store, earning a few cents a bucket, just like what has been offered for recycling bottles or newspapers.
Moreover, in the case of composting, the payment incentive system would be sustainable because the end-product of compost can be sold to farmers, making it an economically workable model, something that is often lacking in recycling, especially for certain materials, like many types of plastics.
Eventually, more widespread composting of food would pave the way for solutions to additional waste challenges, such as the disposal of packaging and clothing. This will have other positive effects as well; if more consumers compost, companies will be more inspired to make and use compostable packaging, clothing, and other products. While more compostable items are starting to emerge today, additional composting will further drive demand and innovation, and offer a game-changing solution for the planet.
1. What is paragraph 1 mainly about?| A．The uneven distribution of food around the world. |
| B．The burden of population growth on the planet. |
| C．The urgency of properly dealing with wasted food. |
| D．The great impact of climate change on food. |
| A．A good system is needed to carry out it effectively. |
| B．It would take a long term to have an effect. |
| C．It is only workable on a small scale. |
| D．It may raise people’s awareness of reducing food waste. |
| A．It is highly profitable. |
| B．It is easy to carry out. |
| C．It is a sustainable economic cycle pattern. |
| D．It is more effective than other recycling systems. |
| A．How Wasted Food Could Be Reduced |
| B．How Wasted Food Could Save the Planet |
| C．How Wasted Food Could Impact Humans |
| D．How Wasted Food Could Become a Business |
5 . Which is more important for parents, making more money to give the kids a better life or spending more time with them? It is a problem for parents and it is not easy to decide. A new study shows that today’s parents are spending more time with their children than parents in the past. According to the study, today’s college-educated mothers spend about 21.2 hours a week taking care of their children. But women with less education spend about 15.9 hours. Before 1995, it was only 12 hours.
Dads are spending more time on ball games. Before 1995, fathers with college educations only spent about 4.5 hours a week playing with their children. Today, it increases to 9.6 hours a week. For fathers with high school education, the time goes up from 3.7 hours to 6.8.
These days, parents don’t care more about the cleaning or the cooking. They are trying their best to spend time with their families. As for the kids, they don’t mind how much time their parents spend with them. They just want to enjoy the time their parents do be with them.
So, take part in the kids’ activities when you are with them, such as helping with homework or playing soccer with them.
1. How long do college-educated mothers spend taking care of their kids a week?| A．About 9.6 hours. | B．About 12 hours. |
| C．About 15.9 hours. | D．About 21.2 hours. |
| A．Women with less education spend about12 hours staying with their kids, |
| B．Mothers in the past spent less time staying with kids than mothers these days. |
| C．Mothers with college education are lazier than those with less education. |
| D．Dads spend more time staying with their kids than mothers do. |
| A．About 4.5 hours. | B．Less than 9 hours. |
| C．About 13.5 hours. | D．About 18 hours. |
| A．They care about how much money their parents can make. |
| B．They care about how much time their parents spend with them. |
| C．They care if their parents are really with them. |
| D．They care if their parents can give them a better life. |
6 . Each food product in the United States must show a “best before” date on its container. The goal is to tell the buyer when the food will be at its freshest. Most people believe it is unsafe to use the food product after that date. But some observers say “best before” labels have nothing to do with safety. They worry that the information will lead consumers to throw away food good to eat.
Some food sellers in Britain recently removed “best before” labels from prepackaged fruit and vegetables. The European Union may soon announce changes to its labeling laws. It may even end the requirement to include a date.In the US, there is no similar effort. Some big food store owners and food companies are pushing for the US Congress to pass new laws on the subject.
Studies have found as much as 35% of available food goes uneaten in the United States.That adds up to a lot of wasted energy. It also means more greenhouse gases coming from landfills. 7% of US food waste comes from people’s misunderstanding of “best before” labels. That percentage is equal to about 3. 6 million tons each year.
Richard Lipsit owns a store called Grocery Outlet in Pleasanton, California. He said we can safely eat canned goods and many other packaged foods for years after their “best before”date. People should look for changes in color, thickness, or feel to learn if foods are all right to eat. “Our bodies are very well equipped to recognize the signs of decay,” Lipsit said. “We’ve lost trust in those senses and we’ve replaced it with trust in these dates.”
If new laws are approved in Congress, food could be donated to food rescue organizations even after its quality date has passed. Food rescue is making efforts to find uses for outdated food. Currently, at least 20 states ban the sale or donation of food after its quality date has passed.
1. What do most people think of the food out of “best before” date?| A．It is a threat to their health. | B．It is still fresh enough. |
| C．It should be donated to food rescue organizations. | D．It should be sold at a lower price. |
| A．To point out the mistake they have made. | B．To show the necessity for US to take similar measures. |
| C．To stop US Congress from passing new laws. | D．To praise their efforts on the subject. |
| A．There is an energy crisis in US nowadays. |
| B．Food industry is polluting the country. |
| C．The misunderstanding of “best before” labels is one cause of waste. |
| D．People know nothing about “best before” labels. |
| A．Food that has gone bad. | B．Food that is out of date. |
| C．Food that is not expensive. | D．Food that has a rare color. |
7 . According to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, we might all be braggarts (大话王) in this competitive society addicted to social networking.
Take a close look at your social-networking sites. Do you like to post photos of yourself in restaurants to show others what an exciting life you have? Or do you like to write about how happily in love you are? Or perhaps you are of the subtle type who constantly complain about jobs but really just want to impress others with your important position.
According to the results of a series of experiments conducted by Harvard University neuroscientists (神经科学家), the reward areas of our brain — the same areas that respond to “primary rewards” such as food — are activated when we talk about ourselves. We devote between 30 to 40 percent of our conversation time to doing just that. Unfortunately, Bernstein says, some people can’t tell the difference between sharing positive information that others might actually want to know and direct bragging. She suggests that bragging involves comparison, whether stated or implied.
“We are expected to be perfect all the time. The result is that more and more people are carefully managing their online images,” says Elizabeth Bernstein, a columnist with the Wall Street Journal.
But the issue is not limited to the Internet. In a fiercely competitive job market we must sell ourselves on multiple platforms and show that we are better than others. In fact, we have become so accustomed to bragging that we don’t even realize we are doing it, says Bernstein. This is harmful to our relationships and puts people off.
Bernstein talked to some experts who said that people brag for all sorts of reasons: to appear worthy of attention; to prove to ourselves we are doing fine and that people who said we would fail are wrong; or simply because we’re excited when good things happen to us.
“Feel sorry for them, because they’re doing this unconscious, destructive thing that won’t help them in the long run,” said Professor Simian Valier, a research psychologist at Washington University.
1. The underlined word “subtle” in Para.2 is closest in meaning to “________”.| A．hidden | B．apparent | C．outstanding | D．simple |
| A．They control conversation and only talk about themselves. |
| B．They know well how to share positive information. |
| C．They self-promote to stand out in their career. |
| D．They don’t pay much attention to their online image. |
| A．Braggarts make a good first impression but the effect decreases over time. |
| B．People who like bragging know what they are doing. |
| C．Braggarts always adopt comparison directly to show they are excellent. |
| D．They care much about the feelings of others when talking. |
| A．Are you a braggart? | B．Society addicted to networking |
| C．Why do we keep on bragging? | D．How to deal with a braggart? |
8 . Both my parents worked for 30-plus years for their employers — they had lifelong careers at a single company. Growing up, they taught me the importance of “loyalty” and “commitment”.
But in a rapidly changing world, the concept of a job for life has become as rare as a dial-up internet connection. This shift from stable, long-term employment and single-employer careers to a world where frequent job changes are the norm comes directly from globalisation, rapid technological advancements and the changing ideas about work.
Globalisation has turned the world economy into a giant, interconnected web. This has made job markets fiercely competitive and talent and opportunities in the labour market more diverse and digitally accessible.
Jobs can be widely publicised and explored online and are no longer tied to your city of birth. Add to this the rapid technological progress. We now live in a world where the skills you learned yesterday might not be enough for today’s job market.
The job market is transforming, with new careers emerging as automation and artificial intelligence (AI) advances. Risks and price policies can be efficiently assessed using AI, making insurance underwriters redundant while advanced software in banking and finance mean data analysis can be automated.
Online booking has reduced demand for travel agents and desktop publishers are being replaced by user-friendly software, which allows people to create their own materials. These changes highlight the need for professionals to update their skills and adapt to a technologically evolving job market.
As a result, career paths have become fluid and multi-directional. It’s no longer just about climbing the corporate ladder and getting a regular paycheck; it’s about exploring different paths, switching jobs and industries and sometimes even venturing into freelancing and the gig economy.
Loyalty is defined as an employee’s commitment to their organisation and its goals. It means a willingness to put in extra effort and to uphold the company’s values and objectives. Loyal workers often identify strongly with their workplace, are reliable and view the organisation positively, even during tough times.
When long-term employees change workplaces, it does not mean they are disloyal. It signifies a change in priorities and a redefined loyalty bond. Employees are loyal to their employer and its interests while working there. But they also seek mutual growth and expect to be recognised and rewarded.
Career paths are now a kaleidoscope (万花筒) of experiences and opportunities. Instead of a career identity being about a company brand, it is about skills, experiences and the meaningfulness of the work. This transformation means career decision-making is more intricate, considering personal aspirations, market trends and family considerations.
1. What factors have contributed to the shift in job market dynamics?| A．Increased reliance on desktop publishing software. |
| B．Changing ideas about loyalty and commitment. |
| C．The decreasing demand for travel agents due to online booking systems. |
| D．Globalization, rapid technological advancements, and evolving work concepts. |
| A．Skills related to desktop publishing. |
| B．Skills that were relevant yesterday. |
| C．Skills in data analysis and adaptability. |
| D．Skills in insurance underwriting. |
| A．By remaining with a single employer for their entire career. |
| B．By prioritizing personal growth and recognition. |
| C．By relying on traditional definitions of loyalty. |
| D．By avoiding job changes to maintain loyalty. |
| A．Forget About a Job for Life |
| B．Learn More as Much as You Can |
| C．Benefit from Long-term Employment |
| D．The Impact of Globalization |
9 . Poverty has forced most Europeans to skip (跳过) meals during the past three years, according to a survey conducted by Ipsos on behalf of the charity French Secours Populaire, which supports people on low incomes. The survey of 10,000 Europeans in 10 nations asked whether money worries had worsened or improved during the past three years. More than half said their situation had worsened, with 29 percent saying they were so short of money that a single unexpected expense would put them into difficulty. The results, published on Monday in the charity’s European Barometer on Poverty and Precariousness, found 38 percent of Europeans were no longer able to eat three meals a day on a regular basis. And 21 percent of parents had skipped meals so they could feed their children.
The survey quizzed people living in France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Moldova, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, and the United Kingdom. The pollsters found the main reason for the poor financial situation in many European families was the fast-rising cost of goods and services, with price inflation (通货膨胀) increasing by three times during 2022 and the cost of housing, water, and fuel rising by 18 percent during the course of a year. At the same time wages remained relatively unchanged.
The survey followed other recent worrying assessments of increasing levels of poverty throughout Europe, with Eurostat, the European Union’s statistics agency reporting 17 percent of the population of the 27-nation group was “at risk of poverty” and that only 15percent of Europeans had enough money not to have financial worries. Another survey, conducted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in June, found the UK had 5.7 million low-income households that were so lacking in money that they had no adequate access to food.
And another survey, by the Equality Trust, found the great difference between rich and poor in the UK was actually being worsened by the government, which, it concluded, was spending more money than any other European nation on subsidizing (补贴) the rich through structural inequality. Priya Sahni-Nicholas, the co-executive director of the Equality Trust, told The Guardian newspaper the growing chasm between rich and poor was “causing huge damage” to the economy. As a result, she said, “We have shorter healthy working lives, poorer education systems, more crime, and less happy societies.” The survey released this week for French Secours Populaire found money worries among Europe’s population now mean a significant number of people have turned off heaters, avoided treatment for medical problems, and borrowed money or other things as a result. The survey found one person in 12in Italy is in “absolute poverty” and relies on discounted food and food banks. And the situation was even worse in Greece and Moldova, which had more people at risk from poverty than any other European nation.
1. Why is there a poor financial situation in many European families?| A．On account of increasing taxes. | B．Because of their pay’s being cut. |
| C．Owing to many people’s losing jobs. | D．Due to rising prices of goods and services. |
| A．15%. | B．17%. | C．18%. | D．21%. |
| A．Misunderstanding. | B．Difference. | C．Conflict. | D．Concern. |
| A．Study shows rising poverty in Europe |
| B．Wages remain relatively unchanged in Europe |
| C．Poor people in Europe rely on discounted food |
| D．Survey quizzes people living in rich European countries |
10 . Growing up in the 80s as a child with lots of siblings, I played in the street until dark or until we were called for dinner. We had an amazing community of neighbours. However, one elderly neighbour hated us. Every time the football went into her garden, she would confiscate it – and then pop the ball. When she collected over 20 deflated footballs, she would take them down to the police station and complain. To her, at least, free and active children were a pest and a disgrace.
Actually, at that time, nothing but one stopped us playing: the shattering of a window and the scream of a parent coming outside to tell us off. On reflection, I was probably part of the last generation of children to play outside regularly. Now in London, the estate I live in is covered with historic signs saying: “No ball games”.
The signs function as a play ban for children. Even during the summer, there are only a couple of rebels who dare to play football on the street. They get my nod and a kick of the ball back when it comes in my direction.
The problem is, many people don’t know that these signs are not enforceable by law: they are simply a request from local housing associations.
Of course, if people are kicking the ball against someone’s house or out on the streets making noise late at night, it would be considered criminal damage and antisocial behaviour – and quite right. But most of the time the signs are just preventing children from playing.
The London Sport charity has recommended that these signs are removed. I agree - let’s burn them all. But I do think it is simplistic to imagine banning the signs will combat a national obesity epidemic.
The Active Lives Survey shows that just 47% of children in England are getting the recommended 60 minutes or more of sport and physical activity a day. Removing “No ball games” signs doesn’t mean that the other 53% of children will feel motivated to venture outside and play.
The Active Lives Survey also suggests that boys are more likely to be active than girls. Perhaps boys are still given more activity opportunities. The Lionesses(英格兰女足)win at the Euros football tournament highlighted the lack of opportunities for girls in football and inequitable sports curriculums in schools.
Children and young people of black, Asian and other minority ethnicities are least likely to be active. Perhaps because racism in sport is alive and kicking?
In addition, access to sport and physical activity is a social justice issue that depends on location and financial circumstances. For a child from an economically disadvantaged background, who lives in a high-rise flat with little green space around, the costs and practicalities of participating in sport are prohibitive. For example, a weekend tennis court costs anywhere between £10 and £27, without travel or equipment.
So, while we can burn all the “No ball games” signs in the country, the real barrier to combating low activity levels in children is social inequality. What really needs to happen to get our children moving?
1. What does the underlined word “confiscate” in Paragraph 1 mean in the context?| A．Collect something as a hobby | B．Take something away as a punishment |
| C．Destroy something due to being annoyed | D．Remove and make something disappear |
| A．Because children prefer indoor activities. |
| B．Because boys are more active than girls. |
| C．Because access to physical activity is influenced by social inequality. |
| D．Because of the lack of interest in sports among children. |
| A．Removing the signs will directly address the issue of low activity levels. |
| B．Social inequality is the primary barrier to increasing children’s activity levels. |
| C．Boys are more likely to play sports than girls due to cultural biases. |
| D．Racism in sports is a significant factor in preventing children from being active. |
| A．The author reminisces about their childhood and the changes in outdoor play. |
| B．The ineffectiveness of “No ball games” signs in encouraging physical activity among children. |
| C．The impact of social inequality on children’s access to physical activity. |
| D．The author’s support for removing “No ball games” signs but recognition of deeper issues. |
