You can’t walk down the street without passing so-called “smart-phone zombies (僵尸).” They are too
Recently the city of Honolulu, Hawaii,
Honolulu is the first major U. S. city to ban (禁止) what is called “distracted walking”. It comes after a study found there had been more than 11,000
However, the law does permit
2 . The Big Debate
Are road tests necessary for teen drivers?
Some say new drivers should be able to get a license without taking a road test.
| What you need to know ● The minimum age to get a driver’s license in most states is 16. Teens must complete a driver’s education course, pass a written test, and take a road test. ● Since the pandemic, Wisconsin has waived (放弃) road tests for drivers ages 16 and 17. The state is considering making this change permanent. Iowa and Nebraska have similar waivers. ● Studies show that teens ages 16-19 are at the highest risk of any age group to be in a motor vehicle crash. | |
| Yes - of course teen drivers need a test Even after taking a driving course and practicing for hours, teens do not have enough real-world experience to start driving on their own. It’s important to test a teen’s knowledge of the rules of the road—and not just with a written test. Plus, a road test ensures that every driver who passes has a certain level of knowledge. Nothing can substitute for a road test. | No - it’s not necessary for safe driving After 50 hours of supervised driving plus a driver’s education course, teens are more than prepared to get a license. And think of the time that will be saved. It lets busy motor vehicle departments complete work that piled up during the pandemic. Experts agree that practice is the best way to reduce car accidents. Skipping the road test and letting teens drive earlier gives them time to get better. |
| What do you think? What do you think? Are road tests necessary for teen drivers? Now that you’ve read more of the issue, have a parent or guardian visit the week junior.com/polls with you so you can vote in our debate. Vote YES if you think road tests are necessary for teen drivers or NO if you don’t. We’ll publish the results next week. | |
| A．Being older than 19. | B．Having driving experience. |
| C．Passing required tests. | D．Completing all school courses. |
| A．It gets teens prepared. | B．It reduces car accidents. |
| C．It saves time and effort. | D．It promotes driving education. |
| A．Teens. | B．Parents. | C．Drivers. | D．Experts. |
Chinese lawmakers have voted (投票) to pass a new law on wetlands protection, establishing the country’s first specialized law on the issue. Yang Zhaoxia,
4 . Germany’s top court has ruled that parts of the country’s 2019 climate (气候) action law must be changed because they don’t do a good job of protecting young people. The result is a big victory for the nine young people who started the law suing (诉讼).
The court suing stresses an important part of the climate change: The change will impact greatly on young people far more than the adults. That’s because the effects of earth warming will become more serious over time. As young people become adults, they’ll be left to deal with many problems that today’s adults have ignored. The government’s failure to plan carefully was putting their future lives in danger.
In 2019, Germany passed a new law, promising that the country would be carbon neutral (碳中和) by 2050. The law made a detailed plan of action until 2030. But the law didn’t have any specific rules or plans for climate actions that would be taken between 2031 and 2050.
Last Thursday, the judges of Germany’s highest court agreed with the young people. They said that not taking climate action made the basic rights of young people to a good future in danger.
The young people had challenged the government’s law in four specific areas. The judges didn’t agree with all of the challenges. But having the court support even a part of their case is seen as a big victory. Neubauer is one of the young people who sued. She works with the climate action group Fridays For Future. Ms. Neubauer said, “Climate protection is our basic right. This is a huge win for the climate movement. It changes a lot.”
The court has given the German government until the end of 2022 to fix the law. The climate law will now need to have a much more detailed plan for the actions that will be taken after 2030 to cut Germany’s pollution, allowing it to become carbon neutral by 2050. Germany’s government has said that it will quickly begin working to make the needed changes.
1. Why did the nine young people sue the Germany government?| A．They faced a higher rate of losing jobs. |
| B．The government refused their law suing. |
| C．The local court ruled against the climate law. |
| D．They weren’t satisfied with the climate action law. |
| A．The adults nowadays are put under pressure. |
| B．The climate change will influence the young. |
| C．Earth warming is becoming out of control. |
| D．Humans feel uncertain about the future. |
| A．Improve the present law. |
| B．Win people’s wide support. |
| C．Take strict punishment measures. |
| D．Achieve carbon neutral in advance. |
| A．Business. | B．Health. |
| C．Education. | D．Environment. |
5 . Owls(猫头鹰)can be found in many parts of the world. And today, one kind of owl, the barred owl, is causing a problem in forests of the northwestern United States. Barred owls are a large species native to eastern North America, but they began moving west at the start of the 20th century. In parts of the Pacific Northwest, barred owls are now causing a drop in the population of a kind of smaller and less aggressive(侵略性的) bird: the northern spotted owls. The U.S. Geological Survey is doing something unusual to protect spotted owls: killing barred owls. As a member of the department, David Wiens has mixed feelings about the program. “It’s a little unpleasant, I think, to go out killing owls,” he says. “But we knew that barred owls were really stronger than spotted owls and their numbers were growing too fast, so it makes sense to do that.”
It is a controversial( 有争议的) program. “A decision not to kill the barred owl is a decision to make the spotted owl disappear,” says Bob Sallinger, a director at the nonprofit Audubon Society in Portland, Oregon. However, Marc Bekoff, a professor of ecology(生态学 ) and biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, strongly disagrees with the experiment and says humans should find another way to help spotted owls.
If reducing the barred owl population improves the number of spotted owls, the U.S. Geological Survey may consider killing more barred owls as part of a longer-term effort. Enough success has been noted for the experiment to be extended to August of 2021.
1. Why are barred owls being killed ?| A．They are breaking the laws of nature. |
| B．They are killing each other to survive. |
| C．They are destroying large areas of forests. |
| D．They are putting the spotted owls in danger. |
| A．Doubtful. | B．Uncaring. | C．Supportive. | D．Negative. |
| A．New Ways to Help Forests |
| B．How to Keep Ecological Balance |
| C．Killing One Species to Save Another |
| D．Time to Protect Animals |
6 . Vegetable gardens may not be as visually pleasing as the variety of flowers, but Floridians looking to save some green by growing their own salad fixings can soon do so without fear. Gov. Ron DeSantis this week signed a law that bans local governments from carrying orders against homeowners from raising veggies in their yards.
The law, which takes effect July 1, puts an end to that particular power of towns and cities across the state to prohibit vegetable gardens for “aesthetic（审美的）purposes”.
The issue became a cause after a couple living in Miami Shores Village opposed the decision of a $ 50 a day fine for growing vegetables in their front yard, as they’d done for years.
Hermine Ricketts and her husband Tom Carroll fought City Hall in a case that wound its way up the state’s court system, with judges consistently ruling against their money-saving and health-conscious project.
After the Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miami Shores’ right to control design and landscaping standards, the couple replaced their vegetables with pink flamingos (红鹳花) .
Their cause was not lost, however. State lawmakers proposed and passed a law that effectively voids the court rulings, with Rob Bradley, who sponsored the bill, reportedly calling the village’s action a “vast overreach”.
The lawmaker noted the difficulty that many families experience getting fresh and affordable food, calling bans against vegetable and fruit gardens ridiculous.
About a third of all households in the U. S. grow some of their own food, according to the National Gardening Association. The group says a 600-square-foot garden that costs around $ 70 a year to keep can grow 300 pounds of fresh produce worth about $ 600 annually.
1. Why will some Floridians plant salad fixings?| A．To protect the environment. | B．To beautify their home. |
| C．To build their own gardens. | D．To cut daily expenses. |
| A．They started a public health-conscious campaign. |
| B．They never gave in to the Miami Shores’ demand. |
| C．They paid a $50 daily fine to Miami Shores Village. |
| D．They were not backed by the Florida Supreme Court. |
| A．It’s sensible. | B．It’s ridiculous. |
| C．It’s ambitious. | D．It’s costly. |
7 . Fear, anxiety, panic — those are the words Elaine Peng used to describe the state of her service’s recipients (接受者) who are fighting mental health problems through lectures and support groups on WeChat. President Donald Trump’s transaction (交易) ban on the social networking app has worsened their emotional state.
Since Peng founded the organization in 2013 with the mission of raising mental health awareness within the Chinese community, she has gradually built up her network. Now she has two WeChat groups of more than 500 people, including service recipients and volunteers.
Peng said, “WeChat is the organization’s primary communications tool because it is much friendlier than other US-developed apps. We also respond to emergency situations through WeChat. For instance, we recently rescued a patient from a parking lot, using the app’s real-time location feature, where his condition suddenly worsened and he didn’t know where he was,” she said.
Seeing that her group’s mission and operation will be affected in a significant way, Peng joined a legal challenge filed by the nonprofit US WeChat Users Alliance, seeking to block the ban. The presidential executive order does not define the word “transaction”, and Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross has not defined which particular transactions would be illegal. Ross may issue the definitions by Sunday, or he may not say anything for a long time, but the situation is already harming people who depend on WeChat. If the judge does not prevent the order from taking effect, then the law goes into effect Sunday, and no one knows exactly what it means.
We Chat has roughly 19 million daily active users in the US, most of them of Chinese descent, according to the complaint filed by the plaintiffs (原告) last month. The lawsuit argues that the order is illegal because it violates (侵犯) users’ free speech rights. It also argues that the ban targeted Chinese Americans, who rely on the app for work, worship and staying in touch with relatives in China.
1. In which section of a newspaper may this text appear?| A．Entertainment. |
| B．Science. |
| C．Education. |
| D．News brief. |
| A．To arouse mental health awareness. |
| B．To build up her network. |
| C．To provide service for recipients. |
| D．To keep in touch with relatives. |
| A．Subjective. |
| B．Objective. |
| C．Indifferent. |
| D．Doubtful. |
| A．Wechat ban-users’ expectation |
| B．Wechat ban-users’ demand |
| C．Wechat ban-users’ concern |
| D．Wechat ban-users’ disaster |
8 . The Superme Court is the highest court in the United States. Let’s meet some of the great women who have left their mark one in the country’s highest court. Margaret Brent
In the early years women were prevented from practicing law. However, Margaret Brent, a wealthy landlord living in Maryland, was an exception. She appeared before courts several times to file lawsuits（诉讼）against people who owed her money.
Lucy Prince
Lucy was well-known for her skills as a public speaker, and in 1976 she became the first black woman in America to argue before a Supreme Court justice. The case arose from a land conflict, and Lucy argued against two leading lawyers. Chief Justice Samuel Chase, said that Lucy “ made a better argument than he had ever heard from a lawyer in Vermont.”
Ruth Ginsburg
Born in Brooklyn, Ginsburg graduated from Cornell University and Columbia Law School. Between 1972 and 1978, Ginsburg argued six cases before the Supreme Court concerning laws that kept women out of certain occupations. She won five of them. Later she was appointed to hold an important post in the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton.
Myra Bradwell
In 1872, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Myra Bradwell’s admission to the Illinois Bar despite the fact that she had passed the state bar exam. Bradwell then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Illinois court’s decision. Unfortunately for Bradwell, the tables weren’t turned.The Supreme Court claimed that there was nothing illegal about denying a woman the chance to practice as a lawyer.
1. What was Samuel Chase’s attitude to Lucy’s argument?| A．Uncaring. | B．Approving |
| C．Doubtful. | D．Grateful. |
| A．Margaret Brent | B．Lucy Prince |
| C．Ruth Ginsburg | D．Myra Bradwell |
| A．Bradwell’s request was illegal. |
| B．Bradwell failed the state bar exam. |
| C．The Supreme Court broke the law. |
| D．The Supreme Court ruled against Bradwell. |
9 . The Pacific nation of Palau will soon ban many types of sunscreen in an effort to protect its coral reefs.
President Tommy Remengesau Jr, signed legislation (法令) recently that bans “reef toxic” (对珊瑚有毒) sunscreen beginning in 2020. The law defines reef toxic sunscreen as containing any one of 10 chemicals, including oxybenzone. Other chemicals may also be banned.
Officials will take banned sunscreens from visitors who carry them into the country, Businesses that sell the banned products will be fined up to $1,000.
In a statement, Remengesau said that the punishments find the right balance between “educating tourists and scaring them away.”
The law also requires tour operators to start providing customers with reusable cups, drinking straws and food containers.
The president said the legislation was introduced based on information from a 2017 report. The report found that sunscreen products were widespread in Palau’s famous Jelly fish Lake. The lake was closed for more than a year because of a decrease in jellyfish numbers. It was recently reopened.
The president also noted that plastic waste, chemical pollution, and climate change all threaten the country’s environmental health.
Scientists have found that some chemicals in sunscreen can be toxic to coral reefs. The reels are an important part of the ocean environment and popular with tourists, But some critics say there are not enough independent scientific studies on the issue. Others worry that people will suffer from too much sun contact if they stop using the products.
Some manufacturers have already started selling “reef-friendly” sunscreen.
Palau is located east of the Philippines and north of Indonesia. The nation is home to 21,000 people. Its economy depends on tourism and fishing.
1. What can we learn about Palau’s new legislation?| A．It contributes to the balance of nature. |
| B．It benefits the health of the tourists. |
| C．It allows for environmental protection. |
| D．It is based on a scientific research. |
| A．They will be put into prison. |
| B．Their sunscreens will be taken away. |
| C．They will be fined up to $1,000 |
| D．They will be driven out of the country. |
| A．Reef-toxic sunscreen contains 10 chemicals. |
| B．Jellyfish Lake was once closed and reopened in 2017. |
| C．Tourists to Palau have suffered much from sun contact. |
| D．“Reef-friendly” sunscreen are on sale in Palau. |
| A．Palau Carried out New Legislation |
| B．Sunscreen Products Are Reef-toxic |
| C．Palau to Ban Sunscreen to Save Its Coral Reefs |
| D．Palau to Sell “Reef-friendly” Sunscreen |
10 . Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg took out full-page ads in British and American newspapers on Sunday to apologize for the Cambridge Analytica scandal（丑闻）, admitting the quiz app built by a university researcher that leaked（泄漏）Facebook data of millions of people was a “betrayal of trust”.
Since the scandal broke, the public has become more aware and concerned about how their online behavior may be used for purposes to which they have not agreed. It emphasizes the urgent need for better protection of personal information.
To better protect personal data privacy（隐私）, targeted laws are needed. More effective cooperation should be carried out to protect people’s privacy online as soon as possible.
Countries, such as the United States and China in particular, which are global leaders in the use of big data should accelerate legislation（立法）on how it can be collected and for what purposes it can be used.
At the same time, a closer watch should be kept on the world’s major internet companies, such as Apple, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Alibaba, Tencent and Baidu to ensure they do not acquire unnecessary personal information or misuse the information they obtain. Despite the huge challenge such personal data protection may pose to their established profit-making models, these companies should know that the more powerful they are, the bigger responsibilities they shoulder.
Strengthened efforts for personal privacy protection do not mean that big data must not be used, but that it is used appropriately. Big data is like a mountain or gold, and overemphasis on its security at the expense of its use will undoubtedly waste a valuable resource. The key problem is how to promote its use while guaranteeing people’s privacy to be protected.
1. Why did Mark Zuckerberg make an apology in British and American newspapers?| A．Because he didn’t behave well. |
| B．Because Facebook data was sold. |
| C．Because users’ personal information was leaked. |
| D．Because university researchers used Facebook data. |
| A．Make and pass laws. |
| B．Punish illegal behavior. |
| C．Promote communication. |
| D．Limit the use of data. |
| A．It is difficult to protect data. |
| B．Big data should be used properly. |
| C．The use of big data should be banned. |
| D．People have strong awareness of data protection. |
| A．Facebook Scandal |
| B．Mark Zuckerberg’s Apology |
| C．Good, Bad and Ugly of Big Data |
| D．Big Data: an Important Fan of Our Life |
| A．Education. | B．Entertainment. |
| C．Opinion. | D．Culture, |
