1 . Smoking in your own home in Thailand may now be considered a crime, if the smoke is considered harmful to other people in the house.
The new law, Family Protection and Development Promotion Act, was initiated (启动) by the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security and was announced in the Royal Gazette on May 22, 2019. The law aims at limiting smoking at home which might be hazardous for others’ health living under the same roof. In that case, it will be considered as “domestic violence”. The new law came into force on August 20.
According to the center for research and knowledge management for tobacco control, at the Faculty of Medical Science of Mahidol University, there are about 4.9 million households where one or more family members smoke. An average of 10.3 million people have unconsciously become passive smokers because they’ve been breathing in smoke at home. Scientific studies show that passive smokers are at greater risk of being affected by cancer.
Of 75 child patients from houses where smoking is practiced, 76% of them were found to have nicotine traces in their urine (尿液), with 43% of them having nicotine content going beyond permitted levels. Smoking at home also may lead to physical or emotional violence because of aggressiveness (攻击性) when there is a lack of smoking, and might as well ruin relationships between smokers and non-smoker family members.
According to the new law, anyone who thinks they are affected by domestic smoking can report to officials concerned so that inspectors will be sent to investigate and take legal action against the smokers. Once confirmed, the court may order a person to receive treatment to quit smoking in an attempt to protect the person’s family. In February in 2019, Thailand had banned smoking at six of its airports along with a ban in public places.
1. What do we know about the new law in Thailand?| A．It came into effect on May 22. |
| B．It aimed at protecting the health of non-smokers. |
| C．It regarded smoking at home as a kind of domestic violence. |
| D．It clearly claimed that smoking at home is a crime. |
| A．Anxious. | B．Harmful. |
| C．Beneficial. | D．Essential. |
| A．The purpose of initiating the law. |
| B．Responses to the new law. |
| C．Actions to quit smoking. |
| D．Bad consequences of smoking at home. |
| A．Smoking is illegal anywhere in Thailand. |
| B．Passive smokers are not likely to suffer from cancer. |
| C．People tend to be more aggressive when they are smoking. |
| D．Thailand is making efforts to create a smoke-free environment. |
1. What are the new laws about?
| A．Asking people to recycle. | B．Raising the price of coffee | C．Forbidding littering. |
| A．Useless. | B．Fair. | C．Temporary. |
3 . 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 |
To deal with the challenges in protecting the Great Wall of the ancient Qi state, the
“Historical records say the Qi state built the wall here to defend itself
Rapid development
The new regulation states that local governments will establish a dynamic protection system
5 . In Mexico, first Oaxaca's state legislature (立法机关) passed a ban on selling or giving out high-calorie packaged foods and sugar-sweetened drinks to minors (未成年人) recently. Less than two weeks later, Tabasco state approved a prohibition too. Now at least a dozen other states in Mexico are considering similar legislation.
Two-thirds of those who died from COVID-19 in Mexico had health problems such as obesity and diabetes, according to Health Department officials. That has led to a new urgency to change diets so that the younger generation doesn't suffer those diseases. The country consumes large amounts of sugar-sweetened drinks and processed snacks. One-third of Mexicans aged 6 to 19 are overweight, according to UNICEF. They can suffer many health issues, especially in adulthood.
Assistant Health Secretary Hugo, who has called soda "bottled poison", has been calling on citizens to cut back on junk food. He said the country's overweight health issue is the fault of a nutritional environment that has been developed to favor those junk food products instead of health.
In addition to Tabasco, Chihuahua state is debating a junk food ban. A federal senator from Oaxaca says he wants to make it a national law. A nationwide law would not be easy. There are powerful commercial interests that don't want it to happen. The business owners' association COPARMEX said the lawmaking “will be a barrier to commercial freedom”.
Public health groups applauded the junk food ban for minors as it is another encouraging step toward nutrition. With their effort, in the rural Oaxacan town, citizens have physically blocked chips and soda delivery trucks from entering, saying they don't want outsiders to bring in junk food. Almost all teenagers there know about health problems related to junk food thanks to the non-profit workshops from the health group. “I'd be annoyed at first,” said 16-year-old Wendy, “but I'd adapt. And maybe I'd think twice and buy fruit or something healthy instead.”
1. What is behind the new urgency to change diets?| A．COVID-19 death cases. | B．Pressure from the public. |
| C．The nutritional environment. | D．Wide consumption of packaged foods. |
| A．advocate a healthier lifestyle | B．met healthier food demand |
| C．cut junk food production | D．win support from young people |
| A．They tried to win grocers' support. | B．They funded the research on diseases. |
| C．They stopped the delivery of junk food. | D．They raised citizens' awareness of health issues. |
| A．Action to Fight Against Global Health Problem | B．Ways of Losing Weight by Eating Smart |
| C．Move to Ban Junk Food Sales to Minors | D．Advice on How to Have a Balanced Diet |
1. 骑行者缺乏安全意识；
2. 说明佩戴头盔的好处；
3. 呼吁同学们在骑电动车时佩戴头盔。
注意：1. 词数100左右，可以适当增加细节，行文连贯；
2. 开头和结尾已给出，不计入总词数。
Dear fellow students,
A regulation has been issued recently that all citizens shall wear a helmet while riding an electric bicycle.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you!
The Student Union
7 . Good afternoon, and welcome to England. We hope that your visit here will be a pleasant one. Today, I would like to draw your attention to a few of our laws.
The first one is about drinking. Now, you may not buy alcohol in this country if you are under 18 years old, nor may your friends buy it for you.
Secondly, noise. Enjoy yourselves by all means, but please don’t make unnecessary noise, particularly at night. We ask you to respect other people who may wish to be quiet.
Thirdly, crossing the road. Be careful. The traffic moves on the left side of the road in this country. Use pedestrian crossing and do not take any chances when crossing the road.
My next point is about litter（throwing away waste material in a public place）. It is an offence to drop litter in the street. When you have something to throw away, please put it in your pocket and take it home, or put it in a litter bin.
Finally, as regards smoking, it is against the law to buy cigarettes or tobacco if you are under 16 years old.
I’d like to finish by saying that if you require any sort of help or assistance, you should contact your local police station, who will be pleased to help you.
1. Who do you think is most likely to make the speech?| A．A guide. | B．A lawyer. |
| C．A doctor. | D．An English teacher. |
| A．tell people that those above 18 can drink and smoke in England |
| B．declare the different laws of England |
| C．give advice to travelers in England |
| D．warn people against going to England |
| A．put it in dustbin | B．put it in your pocket |
| C．take it home | D．drop it in the street |
| A．keep up | B．go to see |
| C．bring trouble | D．get in touch with |
| A．your friends can buy wine for you if you are under 18 years of age |
| B．you can buy cigarettes if you are under 16 years of age |
| C．you must be careful when crossing the road |
| D．you can’t make a noise except at night |
LEGAL NOTICE If you purchased Hill's Prescription Diet or Science Diet Canned Dog Food Between September 1, 2018 and May 31, 2019, Your Rights May Be Affected by a Class Action Settlement. | |
| WHAT IS THIS LAWSUIT ABOUT? The lawsuit claims that Hill's Prescription Diet(HPD) and Science Diet(SD) canned dog food products had high levels of Vitamin D. The lawsuit states that purchasers of these products lost money by purchasing dog food products that were not manufactured as represented and/or paid for services as a result of injuries to their dogs. The Court will hold a hearing on July 27, 2021, at 10:00 a. m. by Zoom Video, which may be moved to a different location, time or date. The Zoom Video link will be posted on www.PetFoodSettlement.com. WHO IS INCLUDED? You are included in the Settlement if you purchased HPD and/or SD canned dog food products in the U. S. between September 1, 2018 and May 31, 2019. | WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Consumer Food Purchase: If you purchased HPD and/or SD canned dog food products between September 1, 2018 and May 31, 2019, you could get a full refund with Proof of Purchase or up to 。20 total without Proof of Purchase. You must submit a valid Claim Form by July 2, 2021. Dog Injury: If your dog suffered injuries consistent with the consumption of excess Vitamin D as a result of your dog eating HPD and/or SD canned dog food products, you could receive money. You must submit a valid Claim Form with proper documentation by July 2, 2021. You can find more details on how to submit a claim by visiting www.PetFoodSettlement.com or calling 1-833-537-1191. |
www.PetFoodSettlement.com 1-833-537-1191 | |
1. When will the hearing be held according to the notice?
| A．July 27, 2021. | B．July 2, 2021. |
| C．May 31, 2019. | D．Sept. 1, 2018. |
| A．One provided some proof of purchasing related products. |
| B．One purchased HPD canned dog food on Sept. 11, 2018. |
| C．One submitted a valid claim application form on July 3, 2021. |
| D．One purchased some SD canned dog food products, costing $20. |
| A．1. | B．2. |
| C．3. | D．4. |
9 . Las Vegas city in Nevada is built in a desert. The city may be known to the world for its partying. But officials have found that there are 21 square kilometers of useless grass. The grass is never laid on, played on or even stepped on. The grass is only there to look nice.
Now, the city is asking the Nevada state legislature (立法机构) to ban useless grass. It is trying to become the first place in America to ban that kind of grass often seen between streets, in housing developments and in office parks.
Useless grass nearly makes up 40% of all the grass in Las Vegas and it needs lots of water to survive. Grass needs four times more water than dry climate plants. By tearing out the grass, the city could reduce yearly water usage by 15%.
In 2003, the Southern Nevada Water Authority banned developers from planting grass in front of new homes. It also offered homeowners $30 for each square meter of grass they tear out. But fewer people are now using the program. Water usage has increased here by 9% since 2019. And last year, Las Vegas set a record of 240 days without major rainfall. The Colorado River provides much of Nevada’s drinking water. The river could lose more water as climate change affects it.
Water officials in other dry cities said water usage needs to be reduced. But they fear the reaction to reforms like the ones in Las Vegas if their communities do not accept them. Cynthia Campbell is the water resources adviser for the city of Phoenix in Arizona. “The city restrictions (限制) may get too hard for some residents (居民). They’ll say that is the point of no return for them,” Campbell said. “For some people, it’s a pool. For some people, it’s grass.”
1. Why does Las Vegas city try to ban useless grass?| A．To protect the local people. | B．To beautify the city. |
| C．To reduce water usage. | D．To reduce waste. |
| A．Allowing planting grass before new houses. |
| B．Awarding those who reduced water usage. |
| C．Praising those who signed on the program. |
| D．Encouraging the residents to tear out grass. |
| A．Many residents won’t follow the ban. |
| B．Reaction to the reform will vary personally. |
| C．Water officials should consider many factors. |
| D．Other measures should be taken to protect water. |
| A．Las Vegas Plans to Ban Useless Grass |
| B．A Method Is Adopted to Save Las Vegas |
| C．Choices between Beauty and Practice |
| D．Grass Is Important but Useless in Las Vegas |
10 . Hundreds of new drivers have been given bans (禁令) for using their mobile phones at the wheel, as part of stricter new laws introduced. In March, the punishment for driving while on the phone was doubled to six points — meaning drivers with less than two years’ experience faced a ban.
New laws meant the punishment for being caught on a mobile phone at the wheel was increased to six points. The new rules were introduced in England, Scotland and Wales. Drivers who get six points within two years of passing their test will lose their licence, creating a one-strike rule for mobile phone users. To get back behind the wheel, new drivers have to retake both the theory and practical parts of the driving test.
Mr Williams in the RAC said, “These people have spent hours and hours and hundreds of pounds learning to drive to gain their personal freedom only to throw it all away through this foolish behaviour. The only comfort is that they won’t be drawn into some terrible crashes caused by the distraction (使人分心的事物) of a hand-held mobile phone.”
When the new laws were introduced, Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said they would act as a strong warning to mobile phone users. However, the numbers suggested a total of 15,752 drivers received the punishment of six points for using a mobile phone between March and August. This is an increase from 15, 237 drivers in the same period of last year.
National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead on roads Policing, Chief Constable Anthony Bangham, said the police took the offence (违法行为) seriously. “This is not a small offence and is never a risk worth taking because a moment’s distraction behind the wheel can change lives forever.” “Our message is simple — don’t do it,” he added.
1. What can we infer from Paragraph1?| A．The new laws have not been passed. |
| B．The new laws are not strict enough. |
| C．Drivers with less than two years’ experience won’t be affected. |
| D．Punishment for driving while phoning used to be three points. |
| A．He will be fined a lot. |
| B．He must learn the new rules. |
| C．He will lose his driving licence. |
| D．He will be given a warning. |
| A．traffic accidents were cut down |
| B．there were still many drivers who broke them |
| C．drivers thought the laws were unfair to them |
| D．fewer people broke them compared |
| A．The police didn’t take the new rules seriously. |
| B．The roads policy should be improved for safety. |
| C．A moment of carelessness may cause big accidents. |
| D．The laws need to be improved a lot and retested. |
