1 . On Thursday, June 28th, California passed the country’s toughest online laws. Starting January 1st, 2020, this law will allow consumers to ask an online organization what data is being held about them, why they require this data, and if there is any other company the organization will be sharing the data with. They can also request the removal of this information, and choose not to take part in the sale of personal data.
Many people reacted very favorably towards this new law, but big organizations like Google are against it. So why did California decide to create stricter online laws?
A man named Alastair Mactaggart, who is a real estate developer, spent more than 3 million dollars and secured more than 600,000 signatures on a ballot initiative. Ballot initiatives are petitions (请愿书) that are put to a public vote after receiving a certain number of signatures.
In an article from National Public Radio, Mactaggart recalled the moment when he became a privacy advocate. About four years ago, during a party, he asked a Google engineer whether he should be worried about his online privacy. The engineer responded by saying that “If you just knew how much we know about you, you’d be really worried.”
California’s lawmakers, to his relief, rushed to pass the bill. The law that was passed in June was close enough to the ballot initiative so Mactaggart agreed to withdraw it.
People believe that this new law will make companies more accountable for how they handle their information. However, it is not without loopholes (漏洞).
Under this new law, companies won’t be able to sell people’s personal information, but they can still “share” it. In the next few months, this new law could be modified. Companies such as Google are constantly trying to change the law in their favor, since data is a huge asset (财产) for these large enterprises.
The state’s lawmakers are expecting to create “clean-up laws” after the first 18 months the law goes into effect. We will have to wait and see how the law develops as it gets changed.
1. What is the purpose of the new law?| A．To protect online privacy. | B．To charge for online information. |
| C．To collect personal information legally. | D．To encourage the development of the Internet. |
| A．He once worked for Google. |
| B．He took part in the law-making process. |
| C．He was in favor of the lawmakers’ decision. |
| D．He was worried about the future of his business. |
| A．Sell its users’ personal information. | B．Share its users’ personal information. |
| C．Get support from the government. | D．Charge its users money. |
| A．Passed. | B．Explained. | C．Prepared. | D．Improved. |
2 . Thailand is to ban smoking on some of the country’s most popular tourist beaches, with the prospect of up to a year in prison for those caught lighting up, according to reports by local media. The move follows a recent survey of litter on Patong beach, Phuket — visited by millions of foreign tourists each year — which found an average of 0.76 cigarette butts (烟头) per square metre in a sample area, which would amount to 101,058 butts on the 2.5km-long stretch of sand.
The survey was undertaken by the country’s department of marine and coastal resources, which described it as a “serious problem”. Discarded cigarette butts accounted for a third of rubbish collected by the department.
“Cigarettes have a direct effect on the natural environment,” director general Jatuporn Buruspat told the Phuket Gazette. “The butts clog (淤积) the drains contributing to floods. When the cigarettes stay under the beach sand for a long time, it also negatively affects the eco-system. And then when the chemicals from the cigarette butts reach the water, it also releases cadmium, lead, arsenic and some acid from insecticide which are poison to the natural food chain.”
The ban, which will come into play in November, will affect 20 beaches including Patong, Koh Khai Nok, Koh Khai Nai (Phuket); Hua Hin, Cha-Am, Khao Takiab; Pattaya, Jomtien, Bangsaen and Samila.
After a trial period, the ban is expected to be enforced on all Thai beaches, as well as on passenger and tourist boats, to deal with the problem of butts damaging the underwater environment. Anyone found to be breaking the law will face one year in jail or a maximum 100,000 baht fine, or both.
1. The underlined word “Discarded” in paragraph 2 means “________”.| A．grown | B．lighted | C．thrown away | D．cared for |
| A．Cigarette butts may endanger natural food chain. |
| B．Cigarette butts will lead to floods directly. |
| C．Cigarettes positively affect the eco-system. |
| D．Foreign tourists may not visit beaches with cigarette butts. |
| A．face two years in jail | B．face a minimum 100,000 baht fine |
| C．be in prison or fined | D．be educated in a training center |
| A．Cigarette butts damage the underwater environment. |
| B．Thailand bans smoking on 20 popular tourist beaches. |
| C．Smoking is forbidden on all Thailand beaches. |
| D．Thailand local media pays attention to smoking problem. |
3 . 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. |
| 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. |
| A．The harm of space junk. | B．Ways to remove space junk. |
| C．Types of autonomous space vehicles. | D．Approaches to stopping satellites. |
| A．Unconcerned. | B．Doubtful. | C．Negative. | D．Approving. |
4 . 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 |
5 . You wouldn’t steal a car. You would never rob a bank or pick someone’s pocket. But you may be another kind of thief.
If you have ever bought a disc for 15 yuan or less, then you have helped to rob artists or musicians of their intellectual properly rights (知识产权).
Last Thursday was World Intellectual Property Day. Activities to tell people about intellectual property rights were held around the country.
Intellectual property includes inventions, literary (文学的) and artistic works, names, and pictures. They are of little value if they are not read, seen and used.
While the cost of copying discs is very small, authors, singers and actors have to spend a lot of money and time making a new product. That’s why they have the right to make money from their work.
So buying pirated (盗版的) music of Jay Chou and Jolin Tsai is like stealing from them, paying them no respect for their hard work.
If Jay Chou cannot make money from his work, he may not make anything else. But those who make pirated goods are becoming rich without doing any hard work.
The authors should ask for a fair price for their work. Earlier this year there was much talk about how much KTV clubs should pay the music companies for using their songs.
The copyright fee also should be fair to the users. That’s good for the music’s popularity and society as well.
1. What is the author’s attitude towards protecting intellectual property rights?| A．He is for it. | B．He is against it. |
| C．He doesn’t care about it. | D．The article doesn’t tell us. |
| A．Inventions. | B．Literary and artistic works. |
| C．Names and pictures. | D．Pirated music. |
| A．Authors should ask for a high price for their work. |
| B．The copyright fee should be fair to users. |
| C．Authors, singers and actors have no right to make money from their work. |
| D．Buying pirated music by Jay Chou is very good. |
| A．Rob a Bank | B．Copyright Fees |
| C．Say No to pirated Music | D．World Intellectual Property Day |
6 . Utah’s governor, Spencer Cox, recently signed two bills into law that strictly limit children’s use of social media platforms. Under the law, which takes effect next year, social media companies have to check the ages of all users in the state, and children under age 18 have to get agreement from their parents to have accounts. Parents will also be able to use their kids’ accounts, apps won’t be allowed to show children ads, and accounts for kids won’t be able to be used between 10:30 pm and 6:30 am without parental agreement.
While some people argue age limitation allows tech companies to collect even more data about users, let’s be real: These companies already have much private information about us. To solve this problem, we need a separate data privacy law. But until that happens, this concern shouldn’t stop us from protecting kids.
One of the key parts of the law is allowing parents to use their kids’ accounts. By doing this, the law begins to help address one of the biggest dangers kids face online: harmful content.
One huge challenge the law helps parents get over is the amount of time kids are spending on social media. A 2022 survey found that, on average, children aged 8 to 12 spend 5 hours and 33 minutes per day on social media while those aged 13 to 18 spend 8 hours and 39 minutes daily. It’s warned that lack of sleep is connected with serious harm to children — everything from injuries to depression (抑郁), fatness and diabetes. So, parents need to have a way to ensure their kids aren’t up on social media platforms all night.
Considering the experiences many kids are having on social media, this law will help Utah’s parents protect their kids. Parents in other states need the same support. Now, it’s time for the government to step up and ensure children throughout the country have the same protection as Utah’s kids.
1. Which is allowed according to the new bill?| A．Ads can be put on to children. |
| B．Children can use social media freely. |
| C．Parents can check their kids’ accounts. |
| D．Related companies protect users’ accounts. |
| A．Because children’s right to surf the Internet is limited. |
| B．Because more personal information may be given away. |
| C．Because it prevents the data privacy law from taking effect. |
| D．Because children may become too dependent on the Internet. |
| A．Higher learning efficiency. |
| B．Better personal eating habits. |
| C．Easier access to healthy media. |
| D．Improved physical and mental health. |
| A．Supportive. | B．Doubtful. | C．Flexible. | D．Negative. |
7 . A Dutch city will become the first in the world to ban meat adverts from public spaces in an effort to reduce consumption and greenhouse gas emissions (排放). Haarlem, which lies to the west of Amsterdam and has a population of 160,000, will pass the prohibition from 2024 after meat was added to a list of products thought to contribute to the climate crisis.
Adverts will not be allowed on Haarlem’s buses, shelters and screens in public spaces, causing complaints from the meat sector that the city government is “going too far in telling people what’s best for them”.
Recent studies suggest global food production is responsible for one-third of all planet-heating emissions, with the use of animals for meat accounting for twice the pollution of producing plant-based foods. Forests that absorb carbon dioxide are cut down for the grazing (放牧) of animals while fertilizers used for growing their feed are rich in nitrogen (氮), which can contribute to air and water pollution and climate change. Livestock also produces large quantities of methane (甲烷), a powerful greenhouse gas.
Ziggy Klazes, a councilor from the GroenLinks party, who drafted (起草) the law banning meat advertising, said she had not known the city would be the world’s first to enforce (执行) such a policy when she proposed it. She told the Haarlem 105 radio channel, “We are not about what people are baking and roasting in their own kitchen; if people wanted to continue eating meat, fine… Of course, there are a lot of people who find the decision unacceptable, but there are also a lot of people who think it’s fine.”
The ban also covers holiday flights, fossil fuels and cars that run on fossil fuels. The ban is delayed until 2024 due to existing contracts with companies that sell the products.
Research suggests that to meet the EU target of net zero emissions by 2050, meat consumption must be reduced to 24kg per person per year, compared with the current average of 82kg or 75.8kg in the Netherlands, which is the EU’s biggest meat exporter.
1. What does the underlined word prohibition in paragraph 1 probably mean?| A．Ban | B．city | C．climate | D．population |
| A．Acceptable | B．Dissatisfied | C．Uncared | D．Supportive |
| A．The seriousness of air pollution. |
| B．The benefits of eating plant-based foods. |
| C．The reasons for banning meat adverts in public. |
| D．The importance of protecting the environment. |
| A．24kg per person | B．82kg per person |
| C．75.8 per person | D．105kg per person |
8 . “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 |
| A．guarding it against malpractices | B．protecting it from consumers |
| C．winning trust from consumers | D．raising the quality of its products |
| A．less debatable | B．more lasting | C．more effective | D．less severe |
| 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 |
9 . New York has become the most recent state to ban the sale of some animals in pet stores. A new law signed by Governor Kathy Hochul bans the sale of dogs, cats, and rabbits in retail shops. The new law encourages pet stores to work with animal rescue groups and shelters to make space for rescued animals that are available for adoption.
California was the first state to pass a retail ban in 2017. Maryland followed in 2018 and a statewide ban in Illinois went into effect in February. Maine and Washington passed laws that ban the sales in new pet stores. Now, more than 300 cities and counties throughout the United States have passed pet-sale bans. There are at least 10,000 commercial pet stores in the country, and fewer than 3,000 of them are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, according to the estimates from the Humane Society of the United States.
In these commercial pet stores, animals are usually kept in dirty, crowded cages with limited access to medical care and human interaction. They often don’t get enough to eat or drink, have little protection from cold or heat; and don’t have a separate place to go to the bathroom. Many animals raised in the commercial pet stores go on to have physical and emotional problems.
Although conditions are often horrible, commercial pet stores are usually legal unless authorities are called in to close those with extremely inhumane (不人道的) conditions. “Dogs, cats, and rabbits across New York deserve loving homes and humane treatment,” Governor Hochul said in a statement. “I’m proud to sign this law, which will make meaningful steps to cut down on bad treatment and protect the welfare of animals across the state.” However, some pet store owners have argued that the law will cause a large quantity of pet stores in New York to close.
1. What is the new law signed by Governor Kathy Hochul about?| A．Avoiding abusing pets. |
| B．Preventing adopting pets. |
| C．Forbidding distributing pets. |
| D．Forbidding trading certain pets in pet stores. |
| A．The operation mode of commercial pet stores. |
| B．The problems faced by commercial pet stores. |
| C．The poor living conditions of the pets in pet stores. |
| D．The physical and emotional problems of some animals. |
| A．It is well received. |
| B．It is highly profitable. |
| C．It takes ages to see the results. |
| D．It may also have its shortcoming. |
| A．New York state offers medical care to animals |
| B．New York state bans pet stores from selling some animals |
| C．New York state assists pet store owners with laws |
| D．New York state ignores the horrible conditions of pets |
10 . In 2011, a law was born. A kind of ladybug (瓢虫) became the state insect of North Dakota. When the governor (州长)
Jaden, Logan, Megan and Isabel were in first grade
They decided that this ladybug should be their state insect. This ladybug was of great
The students spent much of that first-grade spring
In the fall of their second-grade year, they were invited to speak to a committee. In excitement, Megan wrote
The students want everyone to know that kids can make a
| A．forced | B．refused | C．signed | D．allowed |
| A．when | B．before | C．since | D．until |
| A．satisfied | B．familiar | C．angry | D．content |
| A．act | B．feed | C．take | D．depend |
| A．chemicals | B．tools | C．plants | D．efforts |
| A．interest | B．quality | C．benefit | D．strength |
| A．discuss | B．complete | C．imagine | D．create |
| A．know | B．compete | C．recognize | D．phone |
| A．remind | B．convince | C．promise | D．attract |
| A．describing | B．introducing | C．reporting | D．researching |
| A．meanwhile | B．besides | C．therefore | D．however |
| A．important | B．worth | C．necessary | D．helpful |
| A．songs | B．books | C．poems | D．cards |
| A．Suddenly | B．Gradually | C．Unluckily | D．Finally |
| A．difference | B．noise | C．decision | D．point |
