1 . The teenage years of an individual is marked by evaluating one's values,experiencing a shift in outlooks,and a tendency to act rebellious. It can also be a time when someone becomes extremely
The issue of teenage curfews is widely debated in the United States, where this method is still rather
On the other hand, curfews can be seen as a preventive measure that rob young people of their rights,
What is important for a parent to remember when establishing a curfew for their children is that a teenager's misjudged view of certain
A.opposed | B.subjected | C.related | D.restricted |
A.improving | B.restoring | C.ensuring | D.expanding |
A.principle | B.reference | C.approach | D.efficiency |
A.popular | B.absent | C.practical | D.accessible |
A.Typical | B.Evident | C.Critical | D.Specific |
A.in place of | B.in honor of | C.in case of | D.in favor of |
A.results | B.events | C.patterns | D.links |
A.protecting | B.acknowledging | C.limiting | D.liberating |
A.officially | B.logically | C.particularly | D.physically |
A.By contrast | B.In addition | C.In conclusion | D.In general |
A.take charge of | B.contribute to | C.result from | D.deal with |
A.rules | B.charges | C.crimes | D.relations |
A.impolite | B.unrealistic | C.inadequate | D.unfair |
A.adopt | B.allow | C.avoid | D.address |
A.satisfy | B.spare | C.surround | D.settle |
2 . The recent reports of a 4-year-old girl on a Shanghai beach have gone viral on social media platforms, provoking debate about whether China should criminalize negligence in child supervision.
The father of the little girl claimed that he left her alone on the beach for about 12 minutes to fetch his phone. However, she was nowhere to be found when he was back. Surveillance (监控) videos show that she waited for about 10 minutes before walking toward the water’s edge alone, and then disappeared into the water. Two weeks later, her body was discovered about 100 kilometers away in neighboring Zhejiang Province.
The core issue in this case is the father’s leaving his young daughter unattended on the beach, causing her tragic death. Should such behavior, when it causes harm to a child, be seen as a criminal act? In an online survey, more than 90 percent of respondents insisted that the father be held legally responsible and face criminal punishments.
Nevertheless, according to Liu Chunquan, a lawyer, it may not satisfy the criteria for criminal negligence, since the primary focus of Chinese criminal law is on extreme cases of parental neglect, such as physical abuse and mental torture. Rarely do legal authorities charge parents; instead, they are just likely to face penalties consisting of warnings and fines.
In 2022, a 2-year-old baby drowned in a cesspool while in the company of his father. The court ruled shared responsibility between the father and the cesspool’s owner, with a 7:3 proportion. The owner was ordered to pay 20,000 yuan to the child’s family. Unluckily, similar cases do exist nationwide. Roughly, 100,000 children lose their lives in accidents annually in China, which is largely due to negligence, such as parents leaving their children unattended, either in locked cars or at home. Besides, drowning is now the main cause of death for children aged 1 to 14 years old.
It is no wonder that an increasing number of netizens request that specific laws and regulations be passed to ensure the safety of children and their well-being. Hopefully, criminalizing child supervision negligence in China can serve as a warning and precaution.
However, downsides of introducing such legislation may also emerge. For instance, it’s difficult to distinguish between a regrettable accident and criminal negligence, so that over-criminalization can be triggered, in which well-meaning parents making honest mistakes are charged with a crime.
Therefore, a more balanced approach to addressing the issue of infant safety should involve a combination of new legislation, education and support services. The ultimate objective is to prevent similar catastrophes in the future. We must recognize that children are not only their parents’ offspring, but also the nation’s future.
1. What can we infer from the tragedy of the 4-year-old girl?A.Her father’s carelessness and negligence should be to blame. |
B.The beach in Shanghai should not be open to small children. |
C.Her father has been sentenced to severe penalties by the police. |
D.She would have survived if she had not waited in the water for a long time. |
A.Irresponsible adults contribute to children’s death. | B.People can’t be too concerned about child safety. |
C.Kids shouldn’t be allowed to swim alone. | D.Parents’ constant monitoring is a must. |
A.the mild penalties in the existing laws | B.parents’ ignorance of potential dangers |
C.frequent occurrence of such incidents | D.masses of netizens’ urgent appeals |
A.Indifferent. | B.Negative. | C.Objective. | D.Supportive. |
3 . If you were born after 2008 in New Zealand, you’ll never ever be allowed to buy a pack of cigarettes there. In new legislation (立法) expected to take hold next year, no cigarettes or tobacco products will be available for people to purchase legally in the country. That means anyone who is 14 as of today will never be allowed to buy them in New Zealand. The four-year Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 Action Plan hopes to reduce rates of smoking for older people while completely banning sales for the younger population.
Associate health minister Dr. Ayesha Verall, who announced the government’s plan, said the country is concentrating on a “smoke-free generation” with this legislation. “We want to make sure young people never start smoking so we will make it an offense to sell or supply smoked tobacco products to new population of youth.” said Verall in a statement.
The move comes as New Zealand’s health ministry pursues a large-scale crackdown (打压) on tobacco in the country. In April 2021, the country’s parliament announced its goal of being smoke free by 2025, arming to slowly reduce phase out, then entirely cut the prosper of smoking. There are already existing barriers to tobacco products in New Zealand, including high taxes and plain packaging on cigarettes.
“Clinical studies have shown that dramatically reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes makes at far easier for people to quit.” said Verall in parliament. “So the action plan will see New Zealand transition to low-nicotine cigarettes. This is a major change but it is based on clinical research and it is realistic, because with vapes (电子烟) widely available, there is a far less harmful option available for smokers who are addicted to nicotine. While vapes were introduced as a way to reduce cigarette consumption, they remain harmful according to research Vapes are also particularly appealing to young people, who have long been the target people for the product.
1. What is the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 Action Plan expected to do?A.Promote rapes in New Zealand. | B.Decrease smoking in New Zealand. |
C.Reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes. | D.Ban selling cigarettes in New Zealand. |
A.Expensive matter. | B.Honorable deed. | C.Illegal deed. | D.Easy affair. |
A.Raising taxes. | B.Packaging plainly. | C.No selling to teenagers. | D.Ban on planting. |
A.New Zealand cigarette ban | B.Benefits of vapes |
C.Harm caused by smoking | D.New Zealand legislation on health |
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 . 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 |
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.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________