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. |
| 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. |
1. Which of the following will have the strictest ban on smoking according to the text?
| A．Canada. | 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 |
1. Who does the organization of Law Society represent?
| A．Native people. | B．Lawyers in Britain. |
| C．Non-humans. | D．Children in Wales. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 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. |
6 . 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. |
| A．The process of legalization. | B．The tradition of Yurok tribe. |
| C．The reason behind the legalization. | D．The importance of the Klamath River. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
7 . “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 |
China’s top legislature (立法机构) passed the Yellow River Protection Law on Sunday. Due
The Yellow River, the second
The law
The Yellow River basin is home
1. What are the new laws about?
| A．Asking people to recycle. | B．Raising the price of coffee | C．Forbidding littering. |
| A．Useless. | B．Fair. | C．Temporary. |
10 . Among the constant adjustive education standards and requirements, it’s important to ask a question: exactly what do we want in a high school graduate?
Some people think the goal is to enter college and earn a bachelor’s degree. Others find that interpretation too narrow, preferring that young people leave school with the skills to move into living-wage jobs. But one thing many people can embrace is that high school graduates are skilled in basic math and English.
A proposed law, House Bill 1308,could ruin that goal. Students must do the following things to get a diploma: earn 24 credits of coursework; complete a High School and Beyond Plan matching those courses; meet one requirement of a series of “graduation pathways”. The problem is that these pathways don’t work for all kids.
In large part, that’s because they guide students toward college standards. Last year, after surveying nearly 1,000 students, researchers discovered that 18% of students said they were “not good” at math, and 33% said they were poor test-takers. For them, the current pathways are a barrier because of their emphasis on these skills.
The new pathway is instead focused on performance. It would allow kids to create a presentation—say an exhibit or report — demonstrating mastery of two core subjects, but not necessarily math or English. When the bill came up for discussion, over 350 people showed their support, because it’s possible that through the performance pathway, a student could create a project emphasizing mastery in “fine arts” and “health and fitness”. Rep. Sharon favors the proposal. In a hearing, she spoke of her granddaughter, who wrote and self-published a novel while still in school, to illustrate the kind of project is workable. While Tafona Ervin worries that the lack of emphasis on math and English could lead students to graduate without solid skills.
If the purpose of education is to ensure that young people are prepared to pursue a fulfilling life, finishing school uncertain of one’s abilities in math and English weakens education’s goal.
1. Why is the question mentioned in the first paragraph?| A．To make an argument. | B．To introduce the topic. |
| C．To raise an education problem. | D．To clarify a concept. |
| A．One. | B．Two. | C．Three. | D．Four. |
| A．By making comparisons. | B．By offering statistics. |
| C．By providing suggestions. | D．By doing experiments. |
| A．Workable. | B．Effective. | C．Awful. | D．Reasonable. |
