1 . The first-ever fine for space junk was issued in early October in a case of off-planet environmental enforcement (执法). The television company, Dish Network, was hit with a $125,000 fine by the United States government for failing to remove a satellite in orbit that would have risked a collision (撞击) with other space equipment, a safety concern that will only grow with time as off-planet activities increase.

According to NASA, debris (碎片) orbiting in space can travel up to 15 kilometres per second, which is nearly 10 times faster than the velocity (速度) of a bullet. A huge amount of damage can be caused by something just a few centimetres in size, meaning that every effort must be taken to keep space as clear as possible. Collisions that take place in space have an effect back on Earth. Damaged satellites impact our ability to use the Internet and navigation (导航), leaving increasingly global critical infrastructure in an unstable state.

One solution for this may be to send autonomous space vehicles into orbit, which can then catch and effectively de-orbit space junk. By utilizing tools such as robotic arms, or nets, this approach will require very precise track and fine cooperation in order to be successful. Such measures are yet to catch up with the increase in space activity and pollution currently occurring. Therefore, fines and regulatory enforcement may presently be the only realistic method to hold organizations accountable.

The Dish Network satellite, fined $125,000 by the Federal Communications Commission, failed to de-orbit as a lack of fuel stopped the satellite from fully decommissioning (退役) a safe distance from Earth, falling short by around 75 miles (120 kilometres). It is hoped that significant fines like these will serve as a warning for companies, forcing them to make sure the safe decommissioning of their space operations.

1. Why was Dish Network fined?

A．It left space junk in orbit.	B．It increased off-planet activities.
C．It made collisions among space equipment.	D．It sent too much space equipment to space.

2. Why is it necessary to keep space clean?

A．Space junk may turn into bullets.	B．Debris fragments are too tiny to track.
C．Debris may cause great damage in space.	D．A bad space environment will destroy the Earth.

3. What is the third paragraph mainly about?

A．The harm of space junk.	B．Ways to remove space junk.
C．Types of autonomous space vehicles.	D．Approaches to stopping satellites.

4. What’s the author’s attitude towards the fines?

A．Unconcerned.

B．Doubtful.

C．Negative.

D．Approving.

2 . 听下面一段独白，回答以下小题。
1. Which of the following will have the strictest ban on smoking according to the text?

A．Canada.

B．Finland.

C．Hong Kong.

2. What does the government mean by saying "once and for all"?

A．It can’t ban smoking forever.

B．It wants to ban smoking now.

C．It wants to ban smoking thoroughly.

3. In which place is smoking allowed in Hong Kong?

A．Restaurants.

B．Cars.

C．Shopping malls.

4. What would be the best title for this passage?

A．Smoking and Cancer

B．Smoking in Hong Kong

C．Anti-smoking Laws

3 . 听下面一段独白，回答以下小题。
1. Who does the organization of Law Society represent?

A．Native people.	B．Lawyers in Britain.
C．Non-humans.	D．Children in Wales.

2. In which way are the newly-proposed laws different from the others?

A．They focus on better ways to tackle climate change.

B．They forbid other creatures to use trees for food or shelter.

C．They recognize the legal rights of the whole natural system.

D．They protect things humans find interesting like trees and pets.

3. What is the talk mainly about?

A．Defending native cultures by law.

B．Using laws to protect nature.

C．Fighting the loss of biodiversity.

D．Using technology to protect the environment.

4 . Learning to drive is important to the independence of teenagers, but it is also a great responsibility. Although having a law that keeps 16-year-old drivers from having more than one teenager in the car with them at first seems unfair, there are convincing reasons for this requirement.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports that teens are four times more likely than older drivers to be involved in an automobile accident. It also reports that 16-and-17-year-old drivers are twice as likely to have an accident if they have two teenage friends in the car and four times as likely to have one if they have three or more teenage friends in the car with them. Fatal (致命的) crashes of 16-year-old drivers involve the highest percentage of speeding, driver error, and number of passengers. This information is enough to cause any reasonable person to wonder about the wisdom of allowing new teen drivers to take a carload of friends anywhere, even if the law permits it.     

A study at the National Institutes of Health indicates that the part of the human brain that controls judgment and evaluates the consequences of our actions might not be fully formed until the age of 25. Until this study, researchers had placed the age at 18. If this is true, it could explain the reckless (鲁莽的) behavior of many teens, behavior that often extends into their twenties. It also could be a strong reason for being cautious about the driving circumstances of young people.

This is not the only study that indicates such caution is necessary. One study at Temple University in Philadelphia examines the results of peer pressure in risky driving situations. The study, which uses a driving game, has an individual guide a car through a course, both alone and in the presence of friends. Three different age groups participated in the study: 13-16, 18-22, and 24 and older. Members of the oldest group showed caution whether driving alone or with friends present, but the two younger groups took more chances when they were with their friends. Furthermore, because these drivers were accustomed to the noise and distraction of many passengers, they were unable to see their own mistakes. Once again, this is a good indication that a law restricting the number of teenagers in the car with a young driver is a good idea.

1. What does the author mainly tell us in Paragraph 2?

A．Many deaths have occurred because of inexperience and overconfidence.

B．It’s reasonable to severely limit the passenger number of teen drivers.

C．New teen drivers have to ask permission before driving with friends.

D．There are many causes behind the teens’ driving accidents.

2. From the two studies, the author probably suggests that ________.

A．different age groups have different peer pressure

B．teenagers often give wrong judgments above passengers’ noise

C．underdeveloped brain makes teens ignore their mistakes

D．driving circumstances are bound up with the risk of accidents

3. We can infer that the law restriction can probably ________.

A．protect teens on the highway	B．raise teens’ sense of responsibility
C．reduce the number of fatal crashes	D．force teens to drive with caution

4. With which statement would the author most likely disagree?

A．Some teenagers have risky behavior while driving.

B．Certain laws treat teenagers and adults differently.

C．We still need more studies on teen driving.

D．Driving is important to a teenager’s sense of independence.

5 . The Yurok people have lived along the Klamath River, which flows from the Cascades in Oregon southwest through Northern California, for thousands of years, protecting the region and river from which they — and others — draw sustenance (生计).

But as development and pollution continue to reduce the number of fish in the river and the quantity and quality of its waters, the Yurok Tribe is legalizing (合法化) the tribe’s longstanding care by granting the Rights of Personhood to the Klamath, the first river in North America to have such rights declared.

The Yurok Tribal Council’s May 2019 resolution means the river has the same legal rights as a human under tribal law. This order allows people to bring law cases on behalf of the river when its rights are violated. According to the resolution, the tribe’s intention is to provide a legal basis for safeguarding the river and its ecosystem, especially in the face of water diversion, industrial pollution, and climate change impacts, among other threats. In a testimony (证词) delivered to the U. S. House of Representatives in October 2019, Yurok Tribe Vice Chairman Frankie Myers said this legal framework could create a path to ward a more thoughtful view of the rights of nature in other communities and courts, and that any money awarded by the Yurok courts will fund cleanup and restoration projects to remedy the litigated harms.

The Yurok Tribe’s resolution draws lessons from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and echoes the efforts of other Indigenous tribes, including the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, which adopted the Rights of wild rice, in December 2018. “This is a very important step forward in the Rights of Nature movement,” Mari Margil, Associate Director of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund commented.

1. Which of the following can be used to describe Yurok people?

A．A conqueror.

B．A guardian.

C．A governor.

D．A consumer.

2. What is paragraph 2 mainly about?

A．The process of legalization.	B．The tradition of Yurok tribe.
C．The reason behind the legalization.	D．The importance of the Klamath River.

3. What does the law aim to do?

A．Win an award in cleanup projects.

B．Protect the personhood of the river.

C．Fight against global water pollution.

D．Improve the government legal system.

4. What can we learn from Yurok Tribe according to the last paragraph?

A．Time and tide wait for no man.

B．Birds of a feather flock together.

C．Past experience is a guide for the future.

D．All things are difficult before they are easy.

6 . “There is one and only one social responsibility of business,” wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, “that is, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.” But even if you accept Friedman’s statement and regard corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies as a waste of shareholders’ money, things may not be absolutely clear-cut. New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies at least when they are charged with corruption (腐败).

The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than $15 billion a year on CSR, according to an estimate by EPG, a consulting firm. This could add value to their businesses in three ways. First, consumers may take CSR spending as a “signal” that a company’s products are of high quality. Second, customers may be willing to buy a company’s products as an indirect way to donate to the good causes it helps. And third, through a more diffuse (分散的) “halo effect” its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.

Previous studies on CSR have had trouble distinguishing these effects because consumers can be affected by all three. A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions (起诉) under American’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company’s products as part of their investigations, they could be influenced only by the halo effect.

The study finds that, among prosecuted firms, those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tend to get more lenient punishments. Their analysis rules out the possibility that it is the firm’s political influence, rather than its CSR stance, that accounts for the leniency: Companies that contribute more to political campaigns do not receive lower fines.

In all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seem to be influenced by a company’s record in CSR. “We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labor-rights concern, such as child labor, or increasing corporate giving by about 20% result in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials.” says one researcher.

Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question at how much businesses ought to spend on CSR. Nor does it reveal how much companies are relying on the halo effect, rather than the other possible benefits, when companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.

1. The author views Milton Friedman’s statement about CSR with___________.

A．uncertainty

B．interest

C．approval

D．tolerance

2. According to Paragraph 2, CSR helps a company by___________.

A．guarding it against malpractices	B．protecting it from consumers
C．winning trust from consumers	D．raising the quality of its products

3. The underlined expression “more lenient” in Paragraph 4 is closest in meaning to___________.

A．less debatable

B．more lasting

C．more effective

D．less severe

4. When prosecutors evaluate a case, a company’s CSR record___________.

A．comes across as reliable evidence	B．has an impact on their decision
C．is considered part of the investigation	D．increases the chance of being punished

7 . 阅读下面材料，在空白处填入适当的内容(1个单词)或括号内单词的正确形式。

China’s top legislature (立法机构) passed the Yellow River Protection Law on Sunday. Due     1     (come) into effect from April 1, the law explains water conservation on the river basin, ecological protection and     2     (restore), conservation and intensive use of water resources, flood control and pollution prevention among other measures.

The Yellow River, the second     3     (long) river in China, is called the mother river of the Chinese nation. Since the founding of new China, large-scale protection of the river     4     (carry) out and remarkable achievements made. The introduction of the Yellow River Protection Law will further enhance the river’s governance (管理) and protection.

The law     5     (cover) a series of key issues, such as ecological environment fragility and water shortage. This means the settlement of some of the “pain points”     6     have long troubled the river now has a legal basis. The law also     7     (specific) highlights the need to strengthen the protection, inheritance and promotion of the Yellow River culture.

The Yellow River basin is home     8     a lot of cultural relics, ancient documents and other important cultural heritage, and     9     (they) protection is a very important part of the river’s protection and governance, since it is of irreplaceable significance to promoting     10     inheritance (继承) of Chinese civilization.

8 . A measure in the House’s $ 2 trillion economic bill would require states to cut greenhouse gas emissions (排放) promising rewards for transportation departments that post reductions and “consequences” for those that don’t.

Peter A. DeFazio, chairman of the Transportation Committee, said the proposal is designed to push states to act. “We’re going to give them very large motivation to actually make those meaningful targets and deliver on those targets,” he said. According to the proposal, states that cut emissions could get a $ 1 billion pot of money and potentially receive other bonus funding from the federal government. The bill doesn’t spell out potential consequences for not reducing emissions, leaving the decision to national transportation officials. Experts say they could include barriers to accessing highly prized grant funds (拨款).

Much of the attention on cutting emissions from the transport industry-the nation’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases-has focused on the adoption of electric vehicles by putting money in charging factories and supporting battery-powered cars. The new measure sides with environmental advocates who argue the nation can’t battle a changing climate without changing how Americans move around. Environmentalists say the nation’s changing to electric vehicles probably won’t happen quickly enough to limit temperature rises unless Americans can be convinced to drive less, and that would mean building new networks focused on walking, cycling and transit (运输).

Opposition to the emission measure is deep-seated. The heads of five western state transportation departments wrote a letter to Capitol’s committee last month saying the proposal would harm rural areas because options such as heavy-traffic pricing are not well-suited to places which are populated in few people, and it doesn’t make sense to target those state agencies when there are multiple reasons that influence emissions, including fuel economy standards for cars and local decisions about where to build stores and homes.

Kevin DeGood, a transportation researcher, said basic construction shape how people can get around. “It is funny that the state transportation departments suggest in the letter that they do not deeply influence greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation industry,” he said.

1. How does the government provide motivation?

A．By praising.	B．By punishing.
C．By financing.	D．By restricting.

2. What is an intended result of the bill?

A．Greatly changed climate.	B．More convenient stores.
C．Stable fuel economy standards.	D．Eco-friendly transport system.

3. Why did some states mention heavy-traffic pricing?

A．To oppose the emission measure.	B．To introduce solutions to emission.
C．To call for attention to rural areas.	D．To list several reasons for emission.

4. What’s Kevin’s attitude towards the letter in paragraph 4?

A．Supportive.	B．Disapproving.
C．Shocked.	D．Confident.