1 . Progressives often support diversity missions as a path to equality and a way to level the playing field. But all too often such policies are an insincere form of virtue-signaling that benefits only the most privileged and does little to help average people.
A pair of bills sponsored by Massachusetts state Senator Jason Lewis and House Speaker Pro Tempore Patricia Haddad, to ensure "gender equality" on boards and commissions, provide a case in point.
Haddad and Lewis are concerned that more than half the state-government board are less than 40 percent female. In order to ensure that elite women have more such opportunities, they have proposed imposing government quotas（配额）. If the bills become law, state boards and commissions will be required to set aside 50 percent of board seats for women by 2022.
The bills are similar to a measure recently adopted in California, which last year became the first state to require gender quotas for private companies. In signing the measure, California Governor Jerry Brown admitted that the law, which clearly classifies people on the basis of sex, is probably unconstitutional.
The US Supreme Court frowns on sex-based classifications unless they are designed to address an "important" policy interest. Because the California law applies to all boards, even where there is no history of prior discrimination, courts are likely to rule that the law violates the constitutional guarantee of "equal protection".
But are such government mandates even necessary? Female participation on corporate boards may not currently mirror the percentage of women in the general population, but so what?
The number of women on corporate boards has been steadily increasing without government interference. According to a study by Catalyst, between 2010 and 2015 the share of women on the boards of global corporations increased by 54 percent.
Requiring companies to make gender the primary qualification for board membership will inevitably lead to less experienced private sector boards. That is exactly what happened when Norway adopted a nationwide corporate gender quota.
Writing in The New Republic, Alice Lee notes that increasing the number of opportunities for board membership without increasing the pool of qualified women to serve on such boards has led to a "golden skirt "phenomenon, where the same elite women occupy multiple seats on a variety of boards.
Next time somebody pushes corporate quotas as a way to promote gender equity, remember that such policies are largely self-serving measures that make their sponsors feel good but do little to help average women.
1. The author believes that the bills sponsored by Lewis and Haddad will __________.| A．help little to reduce gender bias. |
| B．pose a threat to the state government. |
| C．raise women's position in politics. |
| D．greatly broaden career options. |
| A．the harm from absolute board decision. |
| B．the importance of constitutional guarantees. |
| C．the pressure on women in global corporations. |
| D．the needlessness of government interventions. |
| A．the underestimation of elite women's role |
| B．the objection to female participation on boards. |
| C．the entry of unqualified candidates into the board. |
| D．the growing tension between labor and management. |
| A．Women's need in employment should be considered. |
| B．Feasibility should be a prime concern in policy making. |
| C．Everyone should try hard to promote social justice. |
| D．Major social issues should be the focus of the government. |
1. Which place will have the strictest ban on smoking according to the text?
| A．Britain. | B．Finland. | C．Hong Kong. |
| A．It can’t ban smoking forever. |
| B．It wants to ban smoking now. |
| C．It wants to ban smoking thoroughly. |
| A．Restaurants. | B．Cars. | C．Shopping malls. |
| A．Smoking and Cancer. |
| B．Smoking in Hong Kong. |
| C．Anti-smoking Laws. |
Parents usually teach their children how to cross the street safely—by looking both ways for cars. But do they also teach them to put away their cellphones? According to statistics from years of studies, they almost never say so. In view of this, the city of Honolulu, Hawaii wants everyone to learn that lesson.
Texting while crossing the street will soon be banned in the city. Beginning on October 24，you can be fined from$15 to$99 if you step into a Honolulu street while looking at your phone．Honolulu is the first major U.S. city to ban what is called “distracted walking”. It recently passed a law, which says no pedestrian shall cross a street or highway while viewing a mobile electronic device.
The law includes all electronic devices with screens, from cellphones, tablets, gaming devices, digital cameras to laptop computers. However, the law does permit an exception: pedestrians may use such devices in the street to call emergency services and rescue workers, such as firefighters and police officers.
Pedestrian deaths have been increasing as the use of cellphones rises in the past few years. The Governors Highway Safety Association, or GHSA, says pedestrian deaths in the United States increased 25 percent between 2010 and 2015. That trend continued in 2016 with the number of pedestrian deaths rising to almost 6, 000, 11％ higher than in 2015.
Other U.S. cities may follow Honolulu. The state of Washington was the first to outlaw distracted driving back in 2007. Now, 46 other states as well as Washington D. C. ，Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, have laws against texting while driving.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4 . This month, Germany’s transport minister, Alexander Dobrindt , proposed the first set of rules for autonomous vehicles(自主驾驶车辆）.They would define the driver’s role in such cars and govern how such cars perform in crashes where lives might be lost.
The proposal attempts to deal with what some call the “death valley” of autonomous vehicles: the grey area between semi-autonomous and fully driverless cars that could delay the driverless future.
Dobrindt wants three things: that a car always chooses property(财产）damage over personal injury; that it never distinguishes between humans based on age or race; and that if a human removes his or her hands from the driving wheel — to check email, say — the car’s maker is responsible if there is a crash.
“The change to the road traffic law will permit fully automatic driving,” says Dobrindt. It will put fully driverless cars on an equal legal footing to human drivers, he says.
Who is responsible for the operation of such vehicles is not clear among car makers, consumers and lawyers. “The liability(法律责任）issue is the biggest one of them all,” says Natasha Merat at the University of Leeds, UK.
An assumption behind UK insurance for driverless cars, introduced earlier this year, insists that a human “ be watchful and monitoring the road” at every moment.
But that is not what many people have in mind when thinking of driverless cars. “When you say ‘driverless cars”, people expect driverless cars.” Merat says “You know — no driver.”
Because of the confusion, Merat thinks some car makers will wait until vehicles can be fully automated without operation.
Driverless cars may end up being a form of public transport rather than vehicles you own, says Ryan Calo at Stanford University, California. That is happening in the UK and Singapore, where government-provided driverless vehicles are being launched.
That would go down poorly in the US, however. “The idea that the government would take over driverless cars and treat them as a public good would get absolutely nowhere here,” says Calo.
1. What does the phrase “death valley” in Paragraph 2 refer to?| A．A place where cars often break down. | B．A case where passing a law is impossible. |
| C．An area where no driving is permitted. | D．A situation where drivers’ role is not clear. |
| A．stop people from breaking traffic rules. | B．help promote fully automatic driving. |
| C．protect drivers of all ages and races. | D．prevent serious property damage. |
| A．It should get the attention of insurance companies. |
| B．It should be the main concern of law makers. |
| C．It should not cause deadly traffic accidents. |
| D．It should involve no human responsibility. |
| A．Singapore | B．the UK | C．the US | D．Germany |
5 . Thirty-two cases of illegal hunting or trading wild animals have been uncovered involving 33 suspects since a crackdown against illegal wildlife trade was launched on April 10.
Beijing police seized 74 wild animals grouped in China into the first-grade and second-grade state protected animals, including African grey parrots and cockatoos, as well as nearly 50 wild birds and 21 pangolin scales.
On April 16, police in the capital city’s Chaoyang district caught two suspects, who were respectively identified as Liu and Wang, for buying wild animals, and recovered more than 40 wild birds, including one cockatoo and one African grey parrot, at their homes, the statement said, adding the two suspects have been detained (拘留).
In another case, a 35-year-old man surnamed Hu was also sentenced to imprisonment in Daxing district after he was found selling wild animals through QQ, a popular instant messaging tool in the country. He was caught on April 14.
The bureau highlighted the importance of protecting the wildlife, noting Chinese laws and a new decision adopted by the nation’s top legislature (立法机关) have also shown the country’s determination against illegal trade of wild animals.
The Chinese Criminal Law clarifies that those illegally hunting, buying, selling or transporting wild animals on the state protection list, endangered animals or the wildlife-related products will face an imprisonment of more than 10 years and fines if their behaviors are identified as “extremely serious”.
On Feb 24, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the country’s top legislative body, also passed the decision that clearly states all wildlife on the protection list of the existing Wild Animal Protect Law or other laws, and all wild animals, including those artificially bred and farmed, are not permitted to be hunted or traded.
With the strict crackdown campaign against illegal trade of wild animals on the go in Beijing, the whole nation is attaching great importance to wild life protection.
1. The author mentions the cases at the very beginning of the passage to ______ .| A．explain the new laws on wildlife protection |
| B．show the present situation of wildlife extinction |
| C．highlight the problem of illegal trade of wild animals |
| D．introduce Beijing’s campaign against illegal wildlife trade |
| A．The number of wild animals is decreasing sharply. |
| B．Hunting and trading wildlife has become a nationwide concern. |
| C．Effective actions have been taken to prevent wildlife from illegal trade. |
| D．The strong action to stop trading illegal wild animals has a long way to go. |
| A．serious actions of trading wild animals will face fierce punishment |
| B．people risk heavy fines but no imprisonment for trade of wildlife |
| C．the trade of wildlife-related products will receive no punishment |
| D．those who hunt illegally may face 10 years of imprisonment |
| A．Determined. | B．Hopeful. | C．Unconcerned. | D．Doubtful. |
New E-Commerce Law Takes Effect
China’s new e-commerce law, which was passed last August, took effect on January 1. The law comes amid the rapid development of China into the world’s largest e-commerce market.
The law aims to regulate the market and create a sound
The new law will apply to three types of operators. These include e-commerce
The law will make all e-commerce platform operators
The implementation of the law may bring
But the new law does not aim to
Besides, the law will help clean up China’s reputation as a
7 . 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 |
8 . Freedoms challenge in the Digital Age is a serious topic. We are facing today a strange new world and we are all wondering what we are going to do with it.
Some 2,500 years ago Greece discovered freedom. Before that there was no freedom. There were great civilizations, splendid empires, but no freedom anywhere. Egypt and Babylon were tyrannies, one very powerful man ruling over helpless masses In Greece, in Athens(雅典) a little city in a little country, there were no helpless masses.
And Athenians willingly obeyed the written laws which they themselves passed, and the unwritten, which must be obeyed if free men live together. They must show each other kindness and pity and the many qualities without which life would be very painful unless one chose to live alone in the desert. The Athenians never thought that a man was free if he could do what he wanted A man was free if he was self-controlled. To make yourself obey what you approved was freedom. They were saved from looking at their lives as their own private affair. Each one felt responsible for the welfare of Athens, not because it was forced on him from the outside, but because the city was his pride and his safety. The essential belief of the first free government in the world was liberty for all men who could control themselves and would take responsibility for the state.
But discovering freedom is not like discovering computers. It cannot be discovered once for all. If people do not prize it, and work for it, it will go. Constant watch is its price. Athens changed. It was a change that took place without being noticed though it was of the extreme importance a spiritual change which affected the whole state. It had been the Athenians pride and joy to give to their city That they could get material benefits from her never entered their minds. there had to be a complete change of attitude before they could took at the city as an employer who paid her citizens for doing her work. Now instead of men giving to the state, the state was to give to them. What the people wanted was a government which would provide a comfortable life for them; and with this as the primary object, ideas of freedom and self-reliance and responsibility were neglected to the point of disappearing: Athens was more and more looked on as a cooperative business possessed of great wealth in which all citizens had a right to share
Athens reached the point when the freedom she really wanted was freedom from responsibility
There could be only one result. If men insisted on being free from the burden of self-dependence and responsibility for the common good, they would cease to be free. Responsibility is the price every man must pay for freedom. It is to be had on no other terms. Athens, the Athens of Ancient Greece, refused responsibility; she reached the end of freedom and was never to have it again.
But "the excellent becomes the permanent, Aristotle said. Athens lost freedom forever, but freedom was not lost forever for the world. a great American, James Madison, referred to the capacity of mankind for self-government. No doubt he had not an idea that he was speaking Greek. Athens was not in the farthest background of his mind, but once man has a great and good idea, it is never completely lost. The Digital Age cannot destroy it. Somehow in this or that man s thought such an idea lives though unconsidered by the world of action. One can never be sure that it is not on the point of breaking out into action, only sure that it will do so sometimes
1. What does the underlined word "tyrannies" in Para2 refer to?| A．Countries where their people need help |
| B．Powerful states with higher civilization |
| C．Splendid empires where people enjoy freedom. |
| D．Government ruled with absolute power |
| A．The Athenians refused to take their responsibility. |
| B．The Athenians no longer took their pride in the city |
| C．The Athenians benefited spiritually from the government. |
| D．The Athenians viewed the government as a business to work for. |
| A．Athens would continue to be |
| B．Athens would cease to have freedom. |
| C．Freedom would come from responsibility. |
| D．Freedom would stop Athens from self-dependence |
| A．He is hopeful about freedom |
| B．He is cautious about self-government |
| C．He is doubtful about Greek civilization |
| D．He is critical of Greece’s loss of freedom |
| A．Freedom can be more popular in the digital age |
| B．Freedom may come to an end in the digital age |
| C．Freedom should have priority over responsibility |
| D．Freedom should be guaranteed by responsibility. |
9 . The purpose of the American court system is to protect the rights of the people. According to American law, if someone is accused of a crime, he or she is considered innocent until the court proves that the person is guilty. In other words, it is the responsibility of the court to prove that a person is guilty. It is not the responsibility of the person to prove that he or she is innocent.
In order to arrest a person, the police have to be reasonable sure that a crime has been committed. The police must give the suspect the reasons why they are arresting him and tell him his rights under the law. Then the police take the suspect to the police station to “book” him. “Booking means that the name of the person and the charges against him are formally listed at the police station.
The next step is for the suspect to go before a judge. The judge decides whether the suspect should be kept in jail or released. If the suspect has no previous criminal record and the judge feels that he will return to court rather than run away -- for example, because he owns a house and has a family -- he can go free. Otherwise, the suspect must put up bail（保释金）. At this time, too, the judge will appoint a court layer to defend the suspect if he can’t afford one.
The suspect returns to court a week or two later. A lawyer from the district attorney’s office presents a case against the suspect. This is called a hearing. The attorney may present evidence as well as witnesses. The judge at the hearing then decides whether there is enough reason to hold a trial. If the judge decides that there is sufficient evidence to call for a trial, he or she sets a date for the suspect to appear in court to formally plead guilty（认罪）or not guilty.
At the trial, a jury of 12 people listens to the evidence from both attorneys and hears the testimony of the witnesses. Then the jury goes into a private room to consider the evidence and decide whether the defendant is guilty of the crime. If the jury decides that the defendant is innocent, he goes free. However, if he is convicted, the judge sets a date for the defendant to appear in court again for sentencing. At this time, the judge tells the convicted（宣判有罪的）person what his punishment will be. The judge may sentence him to prison, order him to pay a fine, or place him on probation（缓刑）.
The American justice system is very complex and sometimes operates slowly. However, every step is designed to protect the rights of the people. These individual rights are the basis, or foundation, of the American government.
1. What is the main idea of the passage?| A．The American court system requires that a suspect prove that he or she is innocent. |
| B．The US court system is designed to protect the rights of the people. |
| C．Under the American court system, judge decides if a suspect is innocent or guilty. |
| D．The US court system is designed to help the police present a case against the suspect. |
| A．the suspect is free to choose a lawyer to defend him |
| B．the suspect does not have to go to trial because the judge has decided he is innocent |
| C．the suspect will be informed by mail whether he is innocent or not |
| D．the suspect does not have to wait in jail or pay money until he goes to trial |
| A．To pay for the judge and the trial. |
| B．To pay for a court lawyer to defend the suspect. |
| C．To ensure that the suspect will return to court. |
| D．To ensure that the suspect will appear in prison. |
| A．The American justice system sometimes operates slowly |
| B．The police can arrest a suspect without giving any reasons. |
| C．It is the responsibility of the suspect to prove he is innocent. |
| D．The jury considers the evidence in the court room. |
It is a common sight on campus or in the streets: a young person rides by on an electric scooter, traveling quickly and proudly. But Beijing’s traffic authorities have said that starting on Sept.5, people who are caught riding electric scooters on public roads or bicycle lanes will be fined 10 yuan. They will also be given a warning not to use the vehicles on public roads again.
The announcement was made after traffic police in Shanghai started a campaign to get electric scooters off public roads, with police officers stopping riders because the scooters could cause traffic problems.
The Beijing Consumer Association said it had tested more than 20 electric scooters of different brands recently and found that most had substandard brakes. It added that 16 of the tested scooters could go faster than the maximum 20 km per hour set for electric bikes. According to the traffic police, people who ride electric scooters at certain speeds can easily bump into the vehicles in the vehicle lane and hurt people who walk in the bicycle lanes.
But seeing the benefits that electric scooters have brought to young people, experts are worried that the ban may take effect slowly.
Electric scooters are a great answer to the ‘last mile problem’ of getting from a public transport station to one’s home. They’re light enough to throw over your shoulder. They’re easy to ride just about anywhere and don’t need a lot of physical effort. The scooter can travel 25 km on one charge. It’s convenient and easy to control.
They are also good for environment. Unlike cars and buses, electric scooters produce no carbon dioxide, need no fuel and make almost no noise.
For many young people, they use them to copy cool celebrities they have seen in videos.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
