1 . Crazy Laws
It seems that the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, was right when he said, “Even when laws have been written down, they ought not always to remain unaltered.”
Did you know, for example, that London taxis (officially called Hackney carriages) are still legally required to carry hay and oats for their horses to eat? And in England, it is illegal to stand within 100 yards (91 metres) of the queen, without wearing socks?
If you live in Scotland, however, it’s important to know that if someone knocks at the door of your house, and needs to use your toilet, you are legally required to let him in.
Lots of the craziest laws seem to involve animals.
Last, children are forbidden from going to school with their breath smelling of wild onions in West Virginia. And in Arkansas, teachers who have a certain hairc ut (a bob) will not be given a pay-rise. In Florida, a woman can be fined for falling asleep under the hair-dryer and unmarried women must not parachute on a Sunday. If they do, they might be arrested, receive a fine or be put in jail.
| A．But if you are Scottish you should stay away from the city of York. |
| B．Never should a Scotsman leave his own country. |
| C．But strange laws don’t just exist in the UK. |
| D．England is the place where craziest laws have been in existence for centuries. |
| E．Laws in some parts of the world haven’t changed for centuries. |
| F．In Hollywood, it is illegal to take more than 2,000 sheep down Hollywood Boulevard at any one time. |
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 . After nearly a year of frantic (狂热的) lobbying and debate, the EPA has finalized strict new rules on vehicle emissions that will push the auto industry to accelerate its transition to electric vehicles (EV). The EPA expects that under the new rules, EVs could account for up to 56% of new passenger vehicles sold for model years 2030 through 2032, meeting a goal that President Biden set in 2021.
The regulations are a cornerstone of the Biden Administration’s efforts to fight climate change. Combined with investments the U.S. is making in battery and electric vehicle manufacturing, the auto regulations will help shift the U.S. away from relying on fossil fuels for transportation, a senior administration official said during a call with reporters. “Three years ago, I set an ambitious target that half of all new cars and trucks sold in 2030 would be zero-emission,” Biden said in a statement, adding that the country will meet that goal and “race forward in the years ahead”.
Biden added that U.S. workers “will lead the world on autos - making clean cars and trucks, each stamped ‘Made in America’.” The new rules require auto manufacturers to slash emissions of greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide that are heating the planet, as well as air pollutants that contribute to soot and smog. The administration says the new standards will avoid more than seven billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions and deliver almost $100 billion in annual benefits, including $13 billion in health benefits as a result of less pollution.
“That’s going to have immediate benefits in improving air quality, but also improving people’s health,” Cara Cook, director of programs at the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, told reporters ahead of the EPA’s announcement. “So they’re not breathing in dirty air, especially for those who are living near major roadways and highways, heavy traffic [areas]. Those are the ones that are going to really experience a significant amount of benefits from these rules.”
1. What does the new rules aim to do?| A．To relieve heavy traffic. |
| B．To conserve the traffic regulations. |
| C．To hinder the transition to electric vehicles. |
| D．To achieve environmental friendly transportation. |
| A．Lift. | B．Shrink. | C．Enhance. | D．Accumulate. |
| A．Neutral. | B．Opposed. | C．Objective. | D．Favorable. |
| A．Fighting climate change. |
| B．Achieving zero-emission. |
| C．New rules on green vehicle benefit. |
| D．The acceleration of the auto revolution. |
4 . 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 |
5 . 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. |
After 1028 days of detention (拘押)，Meng Wanzhou, the CFO (首席财务官) of Huawei Technology Company, finally returned to China.
On Dec 1, 2018, Meng was detained by the Canadian police at the request of the US, accused of violating US sanctions (制裁) against Iran.
According to a statement issued by one of the lawyers
The news of Meng’s release has aroused a strong reaction among Chinese internet
“As an ordinary Chinese citizen who
7 . 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. |
8 . French children are saying “Hello” to the new academic year and “Bye” to their cell phones during school hours. That’s because a new law has come into effect which bans phone use by students up to the age of 15. The rule, which follows a campaign promise by French President Emmanuel Macron, also bans tablets and smart watches.
The ban ıs also in place at break times with exceptions in cases of emergency and for disabled children, the French Education Ministry said in a statement. In emergencies, students can ask their teachers for permission to use their phones. Meanwhile, high schools can voluntarily carry out the measure.
Education Minister Jean-Michel Blanquer said the new rules aim to help children focus on lessons, better socialize and reduce social media use. The ban is also designed to fight online bullying and prevent thefts and violence in school. Blanquer has claimed the rule would improve discipline among France’s 12 million school students, nearly 90% of whom have mobile phones. “Being open to technologies of the future doesn’t mean we have to accept all their uses,” Blanquer said in June as the bill was going through in Parliament.
As for carrying out the ban, it’s up to individual school administrations to decide how to put through the ban. School principals can decide to store students’ phones in lockers or allow them to keep them, switched off, in their backpacks. The law allows teachers to take away the phones until the end of the day in case of someone disobeying the bans.
Jacqueline Kay-Cessou, whose 14-year-old son, David, is entering eighth grade at the Camille See International School, told the reporter she was happy to hear of the ban. “It’s fantastic news. It’s something I’ve wanted for years,” Kay-Cessou said. “I think phones are socially harmful. Kids can’t think and sit still anymore and it’s highly addictive.”
1. What is the new rule for ordinary French students in the new term?| A．They are not allowed to use their watches. |
| B．They should follow President Macron. |
| C．They should say “Hello” to school teachers. |
| D．They can’t use their cell-phones at school. |
| A．Cell phones are the only reason for school violence. |
| B．The society should be strict with all the school students. |
| C．New technology should be properly used at school. |
| D．None of the young students should have mobile phones. |
| A．To show the parental response to the ban. |
| B．To provide a conclusion for the text. |
| C．To offer an example for the new law. |
| D．To make a list of cell phone’s harms. |
China’s Good Samaritan Law (见义勇为法) Takes Effect
China’s Good Samaritan Law went into effect on October 1 to encourage people who are ready to help others. Under the law, people who voluntarily offer emergency assistance to those who are, or who they believe to be, injured, ill or in danger, will not have civil responsibility in the event of harm to the victims.
The new law aims to ease the reluctance people feel toward helping strangers for fear of legal consequences if they make mistakes in treatment. It is a response to the phenomenon of people hesitating
There has been no shortage of cases
These cases
However, some experts are concerned
10 . Lawmakers in Massachusetts have introduced a law that would ban children in the seventh grade or younger from playing tackle football (冲撞式橄榄球). The Act for No Organized Head Impacts to Schoolchildren, or the NO HITS Act, was introduced last month in an effort to protect children’s heads from blows (重击) while at a particularly fragile age.
The bill would cause fines of up to $ 2,000 for each time the law is broken. People who frequently break the law, or those whose actions cause physical harm, would face bigger fines.
“It’s all about kids’ health and we have a number of studies that say that repeated contacts to the head are very bad for you and the younger that starts, the worse it is,” said Paul, who introduced the bill with House Minority Leader Bradley Jones .
According to a 2017 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers examining 111 brains belonging to former NFL (National Football League) players found the brain disease Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, or CTE, in 110 of them. The disease is associated with repeated head injuries, not just concussions (脑震荡), and is generally found in athletes, retired soldiers and others with a history of repetitive brain injuries, according to the Concussion Legacy Foundation, a non-profit organization that works to study, treat and prevent future cases of brain injuries among athletes and other at-risk groups.
Similar laws have been considered elsewhere in the country, including California and Illinois last year, though they didn’t secure enough votes to become law. Those against previously proposed (提议的) bans have argued that adequate progress has been achieved to make the sport safer and that the sport offers too many benefits for children to totally avoid it.
Several former NFL players, who have been directly or indirectly affected by CTE, have argued differently, however. “I made the mistake of starting tackle football at 9 years old. Now, CTE has taken my life away.Youth tackle football is all risk with no reward,” Nick Buoniconti, a former NFL player, told CNN last year.
1. Why was the law introduced by lawmakers in Massachusetts?| A．To ban children from doing sports too young. |
| B．To make tackle football safer for players. |
| C．To keep young children from suffering brain injuries. |
| D．To encourage the popularity of some safe sports. |
| A．The fines of playing tackle football incorrectly. |
| B．The causes of the new law in Massachusetts. |
| C．The consequences of breaking the new law. |
| D．The reason why the sport is forbidden. |
| A．Brain injuries can really be prevented with action. |
| B．Repeated head blows can result in brain diseases. |
| C．NFL players used to pay much attention to CTE. |
| D．Future cases of brain injuries can be reduced. |
