1 . When the explorers first set foot upon the continent of North America, the skies and lands were alive with an astonishing variety of wildlife. Native Americans had taken care of these precious natural resources wisely. Unfortunately, it took the explorers and the settlers who followed only a few decades to decimate a large part of these resources. Millions of waterfowl (水禽) were killed at the hands of market hunters and a handful of overly ambitious sportsmen. Millions of acres (英亩) of wetlands were dried to feed and house the ever-increasing populations, greatly reducing waterfowl habitat.
In 1934, with the passage of the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act (Act), an increasingly concerned nation took firm action to stop the destruction of migratory (迁徙的) waterfowl and the wetlands so vital to their survival. Under this Act, all waterfowl hunters 16 years of age and over must annually purchase and carry a Federal Duck Stamp. The very first Federal Duck Stamp was designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling, a political cartoonist from Des Moines, Iowa, who at that time was appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt as Director of the Bureau of Biological Survey. Hunters willingly pay the stamp price to ensure the survival of our natural resources.
About 98 cents of every duck stamp dollar goes directly into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund to purchase wetlands and wildlife habitat for inclusion into the National Wildlife Refuge System — a fact that ensures this land will be protected and available for all generations to come. Since 1934, better than half a billion dollars has gone into that Fund to purchase more than 5 million acres of habitat. Little wonder the Federal Duck Stamp Program has been called one of the most successful conservation programs ever initiated.
1. What was a cause of the waterfowl population decrease in North America?| A．Loss of wetlands. | B．Popularity of water sports. |
| C．Pollution of rivers. | D．Arrival of other wild animals. |
| A．Achieve. | B．Protect. |
| C．Destroy. | D．Divide. |
| A．The stamp price has gone down. |
| B．The hunters have stopped hunting. |
| C．The migratory birds have flown away. |
| D．The government has collected money. |
| A．The Federal Duck Stamp Story |
| B．The National Wildlife Refuge System |
| C．The Benefits of Saving Waterfowl |
| D．The History of Migratory Bird Hunting |
Some American cities are banning drive-through windows at fast—food restaurants. There are two basic reasons for the bans: concern for the environment and the need
In the US, most adults drive automobiles and almost 40% of the adults are overweight. That’s partly
Rules help us live together in a community. At my local park, there is a sign that reads, “Keep off the grass.” Because our community has a need for a nice green space
4 . Some Facts about Britain
School-leaving age
Children have to stay at school until the age of 16. There is no upper age limit.
Alcohol
You have to be 18 to buy alcohol in a shop, but if you’re 16 and you’re having a meal in a pub, you can drink beer or wine with it.
Motor vehicles
16-year-olds can ride a motorbike of up to 50 cc. At 17 you can ride any bike or drive a car.
Smoking
You can smoke cigarettes at any age, but you can’t go into a shop and buy them until you are 18.
Armed forces
Men can join the army at 16, women at 17. If you’re under 18, you need your parents’ permission.
Marriage
You can get married at 16 with your parents’ permission. Otherwise you have to wait till you’re 18.
Paid employment
You can take a part-time job at 14, and a full-time job at 16 (i.e. when you’ve left school).
Entering Parliament(议会)
The minimum age for becoming a Member of Parliament is 21.
1. What is the passage mainly about?| A．People and employment. | B．Children and smoking. |
| C．Age and the law. | D．Safety and traffic. |
| A．take a part-time job | B．drink beer or wine |
| C．drive a car | D．buy cigarettes |
| A．16 | B．17 | C．18 | D．21 |
| A．people can get married at 18 |
| B．people can buy alcohol in a shop at 16 |
| C．children have to study at school until 18 |
| D．a girl of 17 can join the army without asking her parents |
5 . Financial regulations in Britain have imposed a rather unusual rule on the bosses of big banks. Starting next year, any guaranteed bonus of top executives could be delayed 10 years if their banks are under investigation for wrongdoing. The main purpose of this “clawback” rule is to hold bankers responsible for harmful risk-taking and to restore public trust in financial institution. Yet officials also hope for a much larger benefit: more long-term decision-making not only by banks but also by all corporations, to build a stronger economy for future generations.
“Short-termism” or the desire for quick profits, has worsened in publicly traded companies, says the Bank of England’s top economist, Andrew Haldane. He quotes a giant of classical economies, Alfred Marshall, in describing this financial impatience as acting like “Children who pick the strawberries out of their pudding to eat them at once” rather than putting them aside to be eaten last.
The average time for holding a stock in both the United States and Britain, he notes, has dropped from seven years to seven months in recent decades. Transient(短期的) investors, who demand high quarterly profits from companies, can hold back a firm’s efforts to invest in long-term research or to build up customer loyalty. This has been called “quarterly capitalism”.
In addition, new digital technologies have allowed more rapid trading of equities( 股 票 ), quicker use of information, and thus shortens attention spans in financial markets. “There seems to be an advantage of short-term thinking at the expense of long-term investing,” said Commissioner Daniel Gallagher of the US Securities and Exchange Commission in speech this week.
In the US, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has pushed most public companies to delay performance bonuses for senior executives by about a year, slightly helping reduce “short-termism.” In its latest survey of CEO pay, The Wall Street Journal finds that “a substantial part” of executive pay is now tied to performance.
Much more could be done to encourage “long-termism,” such as changes in the tax code and quicker disclosure(披露) of stock acquisitions. In France, shareholders who hold onto a company investment for at least two years can sometimes earn more voting rights in a company.
Within companies, the right compensation design can provide motivation for executives to think beyond their own time at the company and on behalf of all shareholders. Britain’s new rule is a reminder to bankers that society has an interest in their performance, not just for the short term but for the long term.
1. According to Paragraph 1, one reason for imposing the new rule is the _______.| A．enhance banker’s sense of responsibility |
| B．help corporations achieve larger profits |
| C．build a new system of financial regulation |
| D．guarantee the bonuses of top executives |
| A．indirect | B．negative |
| C．favorable | D．temporary |
| A．the obstacles to preventing “short-termism”. |
| B．the significance of long-term thinking. |
| C．the approaches to promoting “long-termism” |
| D．the popularity of short-term thinking. |
| A．Failure of Quarterly Capitalism |
| B．Patience as a Corporate Virtue |
| C．Decisiveness Required of Top Executives |
| D．Frustration of Risk-taking Bankers |
6 . Communities across the world are starting to ban facial recognition technologies. The efforts are well intentioned, but banning facial recognition is the wrong way to fight against modern surveillance （监 视）.Generally, modern mass surveillance has three broad components: identification, correlation and discrimination.
Facial recognition is a technology that can be used to identify people without their consent. Once we are identified, the data about who we are and what we are doing can be correlated with other data. This might be movement data, which can be used to "follow” us as we move throughout our day. It can be purchasing data, Internet browsing data, or data about who we talk to via email or text. It might be data about our income, ethnicity, lifestyle, profession and interests. There is an entire industry of data brokers who make a living by selling our data without our consent.
It's not just that they know who we are; it's that they correlate what they know about us to create profiles about who we are and what our interests are. The whole purpose of this process is for companies to treat individuals differently. We are shown different ads on the Internet and receive different offers for credit cards. In the future, we might be treated differently when we walk into a store, just as we currently are when we visit websites.
It doesn't matter which technology is used to identify people. What's important is that we can be consistently identified over time. We might be completely anonymous （匿名的）in a system that uses unique cookies to track us as we browse the Internet, but the same process of correlation and discrimination still occurs.
Regulating this system means addressing all three steps of the process. A ban on facial recognition won't make any difference. The problem is that we are being identified without our knowledge or consent, and society needs rules about when that is permissible.
Similarly, we need rules about how our data can be combined with other data, and then bought and sold without our knowledge or consent. The data broker industry is almost entirely unregulated now. Reasonable laws would prevent the worst of their abuses.
Finally, we need better rules about when and how it is permissible for companies to discriminate. Discrimination based on protected characteristics like race and gender is already illegal, but those rules are ineffectual against the current technologies of surveillance and control. When people can be identified and their data correlated at a speed and scale previously unseen, we need new rules.
Today, facial recognition technologies are receiving the force of the tech backlash （抵制），but focusing on them misses the point. We need to have a serious conversation about all the technologies of identification, correlation and discrimination, and decide how much we want to be spied on and what sorts of influence we want them to have over our lives.
1. According to Para. 2, with facial recognition _______.| A．one’s lifestyle changes greatly |
| B．one's email content is disclosed |
| C．one's profiles are updated in time |
| D．one's personal information is released |
| A．discrimination based on new tech surveillance is illegal |
| B．different browsing data bring in different advertisements |
| C．using mobiles anonymously keeps us from being correlated |
| D．data brokers control the current technologies of surveillance |
| A．people's concern over their safety |
| B．the nature of the surveillance society |
| C．proper regulation of mass surveillance |
| D．the importance of identification technology |
| A．call for banning facial recognition technologies |
| B．advocate the urgent need for changes in related laws |
| C．inform readers of the disadvantages of facial recognition |
| D．evaluate three broad components in modem mass surveillance |
7 . They hide in trees, hang from helicopters, even follow people down on motorcycles—all so that they can snap a shot of a celebrity. They are paparazzi—photographers who make a living by taking pictures of the rich and famous.
This September, California, a state with plenty of celebrities, passed a law aimed at taking action against paparazzi. The law forbids photographers from entering private property to take pictures, from using high-tech devices to take pictures of people on private property, and from “persistently following in order to take a picture.” Violators can be fined or spend time in prison. The United State Congress is considering passing a similar law.
Supporters of the California law say it will protect the privacy of celebrities, whom paparazzi have been bothering for years. Opponents (反对者) say the law restricts photojournalists from doing their job.
Most celebrities seem to like having their pictures taken when they are in public at award shows or other events. After all, it’s free publicity. But when they’re not in public, they say, photographers should leave them alone. Yet paparazzi have been known to secretly look in windows and worse. Actor Michael J. Fox said that paparazzi have even “tried to pretend to be medical personnel at the hospital where my wife was giving birth to our son.”
Celebrities have as much right to their privacy as anyone else, supporters of the law state. Supporters further argue that the California law is a fair way to keep the press at bay, because the law still allows photographers to do their job. It only punishes them, supporters say, when they violate celebrities’ privacy.
Opponents of the law say it violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (美国宪法第一修正案), which guarantees that no laws will be made to limit “the freedom of speech, or of the press.”Although some people might not consider paparazzi a part of the legal press, the California law does not single out paparazzi. It applies to photographers working for any publication.
Opponents of the law are also concerned about its wording. “Does ‘persistently’ mean following someone for six minutes, six seconds, or six days?” asked lawyer Douglas Mirell. The wording of the law is too vague, critics complain, and could be used to punish almost any news photographer.
The United States needs a free press to keep the public informed about important news, paparazzi law opponents say. Limiting the press in any way, they argue, limits the freedom of all.
1. Which of the following will be considered illegal by the new California law?| A．Paparazzi slipping into the house of a famous person to take a shot. |
| B．Paparazzi taking photos of famous people with high-tech cameras. |
| C．Paparazzi hiring helicopters as a fast means of transportation. |
| D．Paparazzi rushing towards filming sites on motorcycles. |
| A．it prevents the media from getting worse |
| B．it gives photographers a fair way to compete |
| C．punishment forces paparazzi to quit their job |
| D．privacy of famous people needs special protection |
| A．it will violate paparazzi’s privacy |
| B．the First Amendment will be changed |
| C．some photographers will be wrongly accused |
| D．people will not be informed of important news |
| A．Critical. | B．Neutral. | C．Approving. | D．Skeptical. |
