1 . China has set new rules limiting the amount of time children can play online games. The rules limit children to just three hours of online game playing a week. That is one hour between 8 p. m. and 9 p. m. on Friday, Saturday and Sunday most weeks.
Li Zhanguo has two children aged 4 and 8. Even though they do not have smartphones, they enjoy playing online games. Like many other parents. Li is happy with new government rules. But experts say it is unclear if such policies can help prevent addiction to online games. Children might just get addicted to social media instead. In the end, experts say, parents should be the ones to set limits and support good practice.
There has been a growing concern in China about gaming addiction among children. Government reports in 2018 found that about one in ten Chinese children were addicted to the Internet. The new rules are part of an effort to prevent young people from spending too much time on unhealthy entertainment. That includes what officials call the “irrational fan culture”
Under the new rules, the responsibility for making sure children play only three hours a day as largely on Chinese gaming companies like Net Ease and Ten cent. Companies have set up real-name registration systems to prevent young users from going past game time limits. They have used facial recognition technology to check their identities. And they have also set up a program that permits people to report what is against the law. It is unclear what punishments gaming companies may face if they do not carry out the policies. And even if such policies are performed, it is also unclear whether they can prevent online addiction.
A specialist treating Internet addiction expects about 20 percent of children will find ways to break the rules by borrowing accounts of their older relatives and find a way around facial recognition. In his opinion, short-video alps such as Douyin and Kuaishou are also very popular in China. They are not under the same restrictions as games.
1. When can children play games according to the new rules?A.Between 8 p. m. and 9 p. m. On Friday. | B.Between 8 p. m. and 9 p. m. On Tuesday. |
C.Between 10 p. m. and 11 p. m. On Saturday. | D.Between 10 p. m. and all p. m. On Thursday. |
A.the new rules can stop children’s addiction to social media |
B.companies are more responsible for kids ‘ obeying the rules |
C.the new rules will help prevent children playing online games |
D.parents play a greater part in limiting the time of online games |
A.Design an advanced program. | B.Use facial recognition systems. |
C.Set up real-name registration systems. | D.Borrow accounts of their older relatives. |
A.Rules Limiting Short-video alps | B.Rules Limiting Video Game Time |
C.Rules Banning Irrational Fan Culture | D.Rules Breaking Addition to Social Media |
2 . When Lenore Skenazy let her 9-year-old son take the New York subway home by himself 10 years ago, you would have thought that she’d carried out a crime. Now Skenazy started the movement Free Range (放养的) Kids to bring up safe and independent children. Just this month, Utah became a free range state, changing its law to protect parents from being charged with neglect (疏忽)for letting their kids walk alone, or wait in a car for an adult.
Skenazy argues that the risks of giving children some freedom are exaggerated (夸大). Skenazy’s mother used to send her outside at 5 to walk to school. That was just normal back then. And suddenly we hear stories about parents getting punished for letting their 10-year-old son play outside.
We get so used to not knowing our neighbors, not letting our kids walk to school, or play outside, that nowadays, the kids are either in a car or in the backyard, and they don’t get to know the neighborhood. In fact, the world has become safer. We have the technologies to keep track of almost everything our kids do. And so you think you must control them, and you think your child is something that has to be tracked like a package.
The famous case for many parents was the Etan Patz case in New York in 1979. Patz’s parents gave him permission for the first time to walk to the bus stop nearby. He was killed. The story is so terrible that we remember it two generations later. And we don’t allow our kids to walk alone because of one terrible thing that happened 39 years ago. But we don’t say, “I want to drive you to the dentist, but what if we get in a car accident? Think of those people who died in a car accident 39 years ago. I don’t want to be like them. No, we’re not going.” And we recognize that it would be funny to think that way.
1. What do we know about Lenore Skenazy?A.She used to have full control of her son. |
B.She was in favor of Utah’s previous law. |
C.She suggests kids be allowed more freedom. |
D.She was once punished for neglecting her son. |
A.People remain distant. |
B.Kids dislike outdoor activities. |
C.Parents know little about accidents. |
D.The crime rate is slightly increasing. |
A.Unclear | B.Supportive. | C.Indifferent. | D.Unfavorable. |
A.To prove accidents are like crimes. |
B.To warn parents of a terrible crime. |
C.To argue against some parents’ worry. |
D.To point out the real danger to children. |
3 . I recently spent half a weekend sitting on the sofa watching the Davis Cup. I thought about going for a run, but I did not want to miss the rest of the match. Soon it was starting to get dark, so I did not bother (费神). Whenever I watch tennis, I think how nice it would be to play it regularly. But I have been thinking that for almost 20 years without actually setting foot on a court. The evidence would suggest that I’m not the only one.
When a country or city competes to host an international sporting event, it often promises that more people will take up sports as a result. London was no exception. Tessa Jowell, who helped to bid for (申办) the 2012 Olympics for London, said that by 2012 two million more people would be physically active. And 60 percent of young people would be doing at least five hours of sports per week.
In the end, just over one-third of people in Britain take part in sports once a week. A report on Olympic and Paralympic influences has said that a big change in participation levels simply has not happened.
Why isn’t there a big increase in people taking part in sports after most sporting events? Perhaps it is a mistake to assume a definite link between watching sports and playing it. While the games are on, they actually encourage people to do just the opposite — to spend whole sunny days not out playing sports, but inside sitting on the sofa with the curtains shut to stop the sun shining on the TV screen. We don’t expect half the audience of a hit musical to apply to drama school the next day, yet we seem to expect it of sporting events.
The high-level performances on show only remind people that they could never match the excellent athletes in their sporting achievements even if they trained full time.
Maybe participation in sports is not the right thing to expect after a major sporting event. The Olympics can do many things, but maybe this cannot necessarily be one of them.
1. How does the author introduce the topic?A.By sharing experiences. | B.By asking questions. |
C.By listing figures. | D.By analyzing causes. |
A.Watching sports is closely linked with playing it. |
B.Watching games discourages people from going out. |
C.Watching games encourages people to take part in sports. |
D.Half the audience of a hit musical will take part in drama soon. |
A.Do people like participating in sporting events? |
B.Do people prefer watching big sporting events? |
C.Do the Olympics encourage people to match athletes? |
D.Do big sporting events make us do more sport? |
A.Positive. | B.Negative. |
C.Uncertain. | D.Objective. |
4 . Children who spent more than two hours per day in front of a television or computer screen were more likely to report behavioral and social problems than kids who watched less, according to a University of Bristol study that will be published in Pediatrics.
Researchers recorded the playing, screen viewing and activity habits of 1,000 children aged 10 to 11. They also had the kids fill out questionnaires designed to estimate the kids’ emotional well-being and behavior.
The questionnaires contained 20 questions covering five sections—emotional difficulties, conduct problems, hyperactivity (活动过度), inattention, friendship and peer groups and problems relating to friends and peer groups.
The study found that those children who spent more than two hours per day watching TV or using a computer were at an increased risk of psychological difficulties. This risk increased if they also failed to meet the guidelines on physical activity.
While the risks for kids who spent a lot of time in front of a screen appeared to be increased by lack of physical activity, the opposite was not true: Increase in physical activity did not seem to decrease kids’ high scores in psychological difficulties if they spent a lot of time sedentary (久坐 的) in front of a screen. By contrast, sedentary time spent reading a book or working on a project corresponded to the highest scores of psychological well-being.
“While low levels of screen viewing may not be problematic, we cannot rely on physical activity to compensate for long hours of screen viewing,” lead author Dr. Angie Page said in a statement. “Watching TV or playing computer games for more than two hours a day is related to greater psychological difficulties regardless of how active children are.”
Although Page’s study doesn’t clarify the links between inactivity, screen time and psychological well-being, it’s true that kids in the United States are getting less exercise and more screen time than they should. In 2009, Page’s team found a connection between a child’s physical activity and independent mobility, the amount of space in which a child can play without the supervision of an adult. They concluded that, as play spaces have decreased in recent decades, childhood inactivity-and perhaps screen time—has increased.
1. What information can we get about the University of Bristol study?A.It was done by an elementary school. |
B.The results of it have been published. |
C.All the kids studied had to fill out questionnaires. |
D.The questionnaires of it contained five questions. |
A.make a judgment about the kids’ behavior and how healthy they were emotionally |
B.estimate the average time kids spent in front of a screen |
C.infer whether the kids have psychological problems or not |
D.get information about the psychological activity kids like |
A.More electronic products have poured into their world. |
B.They have too much homework to do. |
C.They have fewer spaces to play in. |
D.They lack the supervision of their parents. |
A.A study shows more screen time and inactivity increase kids’ risks of psychological difficulties. |
B.A study clarifies the links between inactivity, screen time and psychological well-being. |
C.A study illustrates why childhood inactivity and screen time have increased. |
D.A study demonstrates how to limit children’s TV and screen time at home. |
5 . As is known to all of us, Extroverts(性格外向的人) are those sociable individuals who always seem to be the life and soul of the party, often outspoken and able to express their opinions easily.
Many of us are taught to admire some traits of extroverts from a very young age and are often encouraged to interact, play and communicate with extroverts.
Lack of social contact, something extroverts are skilled in, can lead to depression, loneliness, and even early death.
So what are the benefits of introversion? These introvert people seem to have more time for deeper thinking and reflection and thus can become more balanced.
Everyone has a different personality.
A.It’s likely that people will be more outgoing truly instead of being encouraged |
B.So what are the benefits of extroversion |
C.However, not all of us are wired that way |
D.They also tend to be good listeners and think before they speak |
E.It is what makes people individual and unique |
F.So is being an extrovert really better |
G.It seems that at times people are made to be more outgoing |
6 . Social media has completely taken over everyday life, affecting how society runs and changing individuals in ways that even they can feel. While social media can act as a platform for people to express themselves, it can also be overwhelming, especially for high school teens.
To teenager Bryson Lan, quitting social media helped eliminate (消除) a significant distraction in his routine and keep up with teachers. “I was scrolling through social networking sites so much,” Lan said. “I was also starting to struggle since I entered my high school year. When school started, I was super overwhelmed (不知所措的), and I was just not ready for it.”
Most teenagers fear that by eliminating these apps, they will miss out on connections with their peers and feel a significant loss to their social life. However, Lan found he didn’t miss anything during his time without social media.
Another problem with social media is the amount of “junk content” posted. People are regularly posting and updating on social media, and much of the content has no meaning to other viewers and is ultimately a time suck.
However, social media isn’t all negative. Social media can be a place to develop passions and boost creativity. For example, Lan found his interest in photography blossom after seeing works from other photographers on social media. “Social media is a good place where you can have a portfolio (作品集) or upload your works,” Lan said. “A lot of people have photography accounts or art accounts. In some ways, I think it actually furthers your hobby.” “Thanks to this revolutionary development of social media, we can enjoy a world where everyone is closer than before,” Lan said. “But we also need to have the skills to make good use of social media, and that depends on each person’s efforts.”
1. What did getting rid of social media bring Lan?A.More distractions. | B.Confusion about life. |
C.A smaller social circle. | D.More attention on his studies. |
A.A waste of time. | B.A timetable. | C.A lack of time. | D.A time switch. |
A.Doubtful. | B.Unclear. | C.Objective. | D.Supportive. |
A.Most teenagers’ opinions on social media. | B.The effects social media has on teenagers. |
C.Innovative development of social media. | D.The problems social media brings people. |
7 . Sometime in the early 1960s, a significant thing happened in Sydney, Australia. The city discovered its harbor. Then, one after another, Sydney discovered lots of things that were just sort of there — broad parks, superb beaches, and a culturally diverse population. But it is the harbor that makes the city.
Andrew Reynolds, a cheerful fellow in his early 30s, pilots Sydney ferryboats for a living. I spent the whole morning shuttling back and forth across the harbor. After our third run Andrew shut down the engine, and we went our separate ways — he for a lunch break, I to explore the city.
“I’ll miss these old boats,” he said as we parted.
“How do you mean?” I asked.
“Oh, they’re replacing them with catamarans. Catamarans are faster, but they’re not so elegant, and they’re not fun to pilot. But that’s progress, I guess.”
Everywhere in Sydney these days, change and progress are the watchwords, and traditions are increasingly rare. Shirley Fitzgerald, the city’s official historian, told me that in its rush to modernity in the 1970s, Sydney swept aside much of its past, including many of its finest buildings. “Sydney is confused about itself,” she said. “We can’t seem to make up our minds whether we want a modern city or a traditional one. It’s a conflict that we aren’t getting any better at resolving.”
On the other hand, being young and old at the same time has its attractions. I considered this when I met a thoughtful young businessman named Anthony. “Many people say that we lack culture in this country,” he told me. “What people forget is that the Italians, when they came to Australia, brought 2000 years of their culture, the Greeks some 3000 years, and the Chinese more still. We’ve got a foundation built on ancient cultures but with a drive and dynamism of a young country. It’s a pretty hard combination to beat.”
He is right, but I can’t help wishing they would keep those old ferries.
1. What is the first paragraph mainly about?A.Sydney’s striking architecture. | B.The cultural diversity of Sydney. |
C.The key to Sydney’s development. | D.Sydney’s tourist attractions in the 1960s. |
A.He goes to work by boat. | B.He looks forward to a new life. |
C.He pilots catamarans well. | D.He is attached to the old ferries. |
A.It is losing its traditions. | B.It should speed up its progress. |
C.It should expand its population. | D.It is becoming more international. |
A.A city built on ancient cultures is more dynamic. |
B.A city can be young and old at the same time. |
C.Modernity is usually achieved at the cost of elegance. |
D.Compromise should be made between the local and the foreign. |
8 . In recent years advances in medical technology have made it possible for people to live longer than in the past. New medicines and machines are developing every day to extend life.
However, some people, including some doctors, are not in favor of these life extending measures, and they say that people should have the right(权利) to die when they want. They say that the quality of life is as important as life itself, and that people should not be forced to go on living when conditions of life have become unbearable. They say that people should be allowed to die with dignity(尊严) and to decide when they want to die.
Others don’ t agree and say that life under any conditions is better than death and that the duty of doctors is always to extend life as long as possible. And so the battle goes on and on without a definite(明确的) answer.
1. People can live longer than in the past. It’ s because________.A.medical technology develops | B.we have big hospitals |
C.there are many good doctors | D.we eat better than before |
A.the doctors | B.the surroundings |
C.his or his family | D.the patient himself or herself |
A.death is better than life | B.life is better than death |
C.neither life nor death is good | D.none of the above |
Is social media messing with children’s morals?
Parents are often concerned about the effects of social media on their children’s character. We have all heard complaints that young people are spending too much time online and not enough time in the “real world” —with studies showing that nearly three-quarters of 12 to 15-year-olds in the UK have a social media profile and spend an average of 19 hours a week online.
More worrying, perhaps, than the amount of time spent online, are the findings that suggest social media use can actually influence users’ personality and character. Recent research, for example, shown that there is a link between social media use and narcissism (自恋), and that the use of social networking websites may have an nagative effect on social decision making and reduce levels of empathy (同情心).
With this in mind, one of the latest research projects at the Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues, looks at the impact social media has on young people’s character and moral development, and aims to understand the benefits social media can have on development.
The first stage of the research involved a “parent poll (survey)” of 1,738 parents of 11 to 17-year-olds from across the UK asked a series of questions on their feelings around social media, and the moral (or immoral) messages that appear online. Our findings so far indicate that parents’ attitudes towards social media are largely negative–over a half of parents we questioned agree that social media “hinders or weakens” a young person’s character or moral development. While only 15% of respondents agreed that social media could “enhance or support” it.
However, it isn’t all doom and gloom, because our research also shows that social media can be a source for good. Nearly three quarters of the parents who use social media on a regular basis reported seeing content with a positive moral message at least once a day-including humour, appreciation of beauty, creativity, kindness, love and courage. And it could well be, that viewing this type of positive online content could have a positive influence on young people’s attitudes and behaviours.
This is because on social media sites, users often come across new perspectives and situations-such as different religions, cultures and social groups. And exposure to these situations online could actually help young people be more understanding and tolerant—and in turn develop their empathy skills. This is because it allows them to view things from other people’s perspectives, in a way they might not be able to in “real life”.
Of course, this translation from exposure to empathy may not always follow-which can be seen in the high rates of cyber bullying. According to a 2015 report, 62% of 13 to 20-year-olds who had been bullied reported some degree of cyber bullying—which shows that empathy doesn’t always play a part in online environments.
But while it may be tempting for some parents to just ban social media use altogether, it is unlikely to be a successful strategy in the long term-social media is not going away. Instead, we need to better understand the relationship between social media use and a young person’s character and moral values. And through our research, we hope to be able to offer constructive evidence-based advice on exactly this.
Because it is clear that the online environment is a moral terrain which requires successful navigation. By understanding how some immoral events can be avoided, we can help to create a safer and more even path for young people to negotiate.
1. According to the research, what are the parents’ attitudes towards social media?2. Why could viewing positive online content have a positive influence on young people’s attitudes and behaviours?
3. Please decide which part is false in the following statement, then underline it and explain why.
For parents, it is a good strategy to ban social media because it may have a negative influence on young people’s moral development.
4. Please briefly present your opinion on how to be a moral person on social media. (In about 40words)
10 . Virtual reality is quickly becoming the new technological frontier. Tech companies everywhere seem to be racing to get their foot in the VR door. However, virtual reality has a set of challenges and hurdles that it must overcome in order to work well. It should be noted that VR is heavily dependent on being very fast, very accurate and very good-looking. If it isn’t, the viewer will feel motion sick or disconnected from the world that VR is trying to create.
Now that we can actually build VR headsets that begin to meet these requirements, we are seeing a rising interest in VR. As it rises, so does the interest in creating new media to be experienced in using virtual reality. Journalism is a medium built on relevance. Journalists should always be finding new ways to tell stories and deliver content. It is a goldmine for storytelling. What better ways to tell a story to someone than to put them right in the center of it?
Virtual reality is a powerful tool for journalists. The consumer isn’t just reading or watching something play out; they’re experiencing it. The immersive nature of VR allows for people to connect with the subject matter on a much deeper level than just reading about it. The experience is emotional, speaking more to our instinct than our intellect. The possibilities for storytelling here are legion, and any storyteller wanting to do something more interesting than their peers should surely be considering the sheer power of VR.
The question of virtual reality, though, is not how powerful it is. That is immediately apparent. The question of VR is one of viability and availability. Telling stories must be easy to do, and access to those stories must be readily available. This is the biggest challenge that VR faces. If the tools to tell a story with VR aren’t easy to pick up and learn, VR will fail. If VR technology isn’t both top-of-the-line and affordable, VR will fail.
Accessibility was one concern for Thomas Hallaq, assistant professor of journalism and mass communications, who said that current VR technology, is pretty exclusive right now. Despite that, he said he doesn’t think the exclusivity of this technology will be a problem in the long run.
“I think it’s very promising,” Hallaq said. “We’re seeing more technology become accessible, and more people having access to that technology. Just look at smartphones.” Like radio, TV and the Internet before it, virtual reality will change the way we tell stories.
1. Why is VR considered a powerful tool for journalism?A.Because it is an exclusively new tool. |
B.Because it is very powerful and popular. |
C.Because people can experience the story in person. |
D.Because it is very fast, accurate and good-looking. |
A.How powerful and interesting it can be. |
B.Whether people will have easy access to it. |
C.Whether qualified VR headsets can be built. |
D.What new ways people will find to deliver content. |
A.Optimistic. | B.Neutral. | C.Pessimistic. | D.Concerned. |
A.The Wide Popularity of Virtual Reality |
B.The Future Development of Virtual Reality |
C.Challenges and Hurdles of Virtual Reality |
D.Virtual Reality is the Future of Storytelling |