1 . This week the Portuguese parliament attracted headlines around the world after we banned bosses from contacting their employees outside of working hours. Under the new laws, employers will now face punishment if they text-message, phone or email their workers when they are off the clock.

There should be a boundary between the time in which a worker is a resource in the service of the person paying their salary, and the time in which they should be the owner of a life that is not all about work. We have introduced these new labour laws to avoid the blurring (模糊) of the boundary needed for a good work-life balance.

In the age of the industrial revolution, workers could be little more than workers. The demand for shorter working hours was a central tenet of the labour movement from the very beginning. Long working hours can cause poor health. The worry has been that the rise of remote working is threatening to take us back to that period before trade unions won protections for their members, when the working day stretched out endlessly. Remote working has to be step forward, not a step back. When more and more of us are working remotely, it is all the more essential to establish clear boundaries.

Labour market regulation cannot ignore the inequality between the parties: employers and employees. A work relation is not one between equals that can be freely regulated by the individual contract. Between the weak and the strong, the state must be involved to regain the balance.

In an unequal relationship such as that between boss and worker, it is not enough to establish the latter has a “right to disconnect”; to switch off their mobile phone, close their laptop, or ignore phone calls that arrive in the middle of dinner with their family. Any abuse that conflicts with that right must be stopped through punishment. This is why we have prohibited employers from contacting workers outside working hours, and imposed potential fines for breaking the rules.

1. What’s the purpose of the new laws?

A．To make workers serve others more efficiently.

B．To increase workers’ time remaining for the enjoyment of life.

C．To strengthen the boundaries between working time and personal time,

D．To encourage bosses to provide better working environments for their workers.

2. What result does remote working bring?

A．It is threatening to make us work longer.	B．It is more tiring than working in an office.
C．It frees workers from unnecessary tasks.	D．It is a step forward in establishing clear boundaries.

3. Why are new laws needed now that workers have the right to disconnect?

A．Workers should be paid for their extra work.

B．The relationship between boss and worker is unequal.

C．Many workers have not signed contract with their bosses.

D．Bosses have too many ways to send messages to their workers.

4. Which of the following can be the best title for the text?

A．Remote Working Makes the Protection of Workers Necessary and Urgent

B．Portuguese Workers’ Right to Disconnect Has Been Largely Strengthened

C．Laws Stopped Portugal’s Bosses Contacting Staff Outside Work Hours

D．Laws Protecting the Relationship Between Parties Were Passed in Portugal

2 . A measure in the House’s $ 2 trillion economic bill would require states to cut greenhouse gas emissions (排放) promising rewards for transportation departments that post reductions and “consequences” for those that don’t.

Peter A. DeFazio, chairman of the Transportation Committee, said the proposal is designed to push states to act. “We’re going to give them very large motivation to actually make those meaningful targets and deliver on those targets,” he said. According to the proposal, states that cut emissions could get a $ 1 billion pot of money and potentially receive other bonus funding from the federal government. The bill doesn’t spell out potential consequences for not reducing emissions, leaving the decision to national transportation officials. Experts say they could include barriers to accessing highly prized grant funds (拨款).

Much of the attention on cutting emissions from the transport industry-the nation’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases-has focused on the adoption of electric vehicles by putting money in charging factories and supporting battery-powered cars. The new measure sides with environmental advocates who argue the nation can’t battle a changing climate without changing how Americans move around. Environmentalists say the nation’s changing to electric vehicles probably won’t happen quickly enough to limit temperature rises unless Americans can be convinced to drive less, and that would mean building new networks focused on walking, cycling and transit (运输).

Opposition to the emission measure is deep-seated. The heads of five western state transportation departments wrote a letter to Capitol’s committee last month saying the proposal would harm rural areas because options such as heavy-traffic pricing are not well-suited to places which are populated in few people, and it doesn’t make sense to target those state agencies when there are multiple reasons that influence emissions, including fuel economy standards for cars and local decisions about where to build stores and homes.

Kevin DeGood, a transportation researcher, said basic construction shape how people can get around. “It is funny that the state transportation departments suggest in the letter that they do not deeply influence greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation industry,” he said.

1. How does the government provide motivation?

A．By praising.	B．By punishing.
C．By financing.	D．By restricting.

2. What is an intended result of the bill?

A．Greatly changed climate.	B．More convenient stores.
C．Stable fuel economy standards.	D．Eco-friendly transport system.

3. Why did some states mention heavy-traffic pricing?

A．To oppose the emission measure.	B．To introduce solutions to emission.
C．To call for attention to rural areas.	D．To list several reasons for emission.

4. What’s Kevin’s attitude towards the letter in paragraph 4?

A．Supportive.	B．Disapproving.
C．Shocked.	D．Confident.

6 . 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.

2. How many items does House Bill 1308require for high school students to graduate?

A．One.

B．Two.

C．Three.

D．Four.

3. How does the writer make his points persuasive in Para.4?

A．By making comparisons.	B．By offering statistics.
C．By providing suggestions.	D．By doing experiments.

4. What does the author think of House Bill 1308?

A．Workable.

B．Effective.

C．Awful.

D．Reasonable.

7 . E-cigarettes are battery-operated devices that allow users to breathe in nicotine (尼古丁) without lighting a cigarette. They come in many shapes and sizes like regular cigarettes, pens, USB sticks and other everyday items.

Though e-cigarettes may be less harmful than regular cigarettes, their effect on health can still be serious. Using e-cigarettes, or vaping, has been associated with a higher risk of lung injury. E-cigarette exposure may be particularly harmful to young adults — it can harm their brain development and cause a lifelong addiction to nicotine. According to Food and Drug Administration(FDA), an increasing number of students are using e-cigarettes every year and FDA is trying to work out how to regulate using e-cigarettes.

One way to cut e-cigarette consumption is to impose a tax. A study by the Centre for Health Economics &Policy Studies at San Diego State University found that a $1 increase in e-cigarette taxes is associated with a 14% — 26% decrease in vaping among high-school students. Young people tend to be strapped, so even a small tax increase could discourage their vaping. Unexpectedly, the tax increase seems also to decrease teenage alcohol consumption. According to the study, a $1 increase in e-cigarette taxes is associated with a 10%-11%reduction in teenage excessive alcohol use. Smoking and drinking tend to go together.

Teenagers who drink are twice as likely as others to light up. In turn, raising taxes on cigarettes has been found to reduce teenage drinking.

So should lawmakers surely rush to carry out an e-cigarette tax? The answer is not so simple. Catherine Maclean, one of the study's authors, warned, “Despite the potential of a tax increase on e-cigarettes to restrict young adults' using cigarettes, it may lead to some others switching to regular cigarettes or illegal vaping products.”

Many other ways are put forward. Some believe requiring a prescription (处方) for e-cigarettes could help as well. Another tighter regulation is also a possible answer — Britain and the Euro-pean Union regulate the amount of nicotine in e-cigarettes.

1. How does the author lead in the topic of the text?

A．By giving an example.	B．By making a comparison.
C．By giving a definition.	D．By making an assumption.

2. What can we know about e-cigarettes?

A．It is hardly addictive to new smokers.	B．It can help develop teenagers' thinking.
C．It is increasingly accepted by teenagers.	D．It can deepen regular smokers 'addiction.

3. What does the underlined word “strapped” in paragraph 3 mean?

A．Feeling grateful.	B．Lacking confidence.
C．Showing strong passion.	D．Having little money.

4. What is Maclean's attitude to the e-cigarette tax?

A．Objective.

B．Doubtful.

C．Favorable.

D．Critical.

9 . China will accelerate law-making on making up for ecological damage, as the mechanism (机制) continues to prove its role in helping restore damaged environments across the country, according to the Ministry of Ecology and Environment. From 2018 to 2021, authorities across the country handled about 11, 300 such cases, with compensation (补偿) amounting to almost 11.7 billion yuan.

The department showed statistics demonstrating the mechanism as effective in dealing with ecological and environmental damage.

It said that thanks to the compensation, over 36 million cubic meters of contaminated soil and 300 million cubic meters of polluted surface water have been treated. The mechanism has also helped restore over 61 million square meters of forest.

In a case exposed in late 2019, for instance, a paper company named Meili was found to have illegally dumped a large amount of thick, black waste from papermaking in the Tengger Desert. According to the ministry’s investigation, most of the pollutants were dumped from 2003 to 2007, polluted soil and groundwater, and damaging plants. In March 2021, after a third-party agency was brought in to assess the damage, a court in Zhongwei required the polluter to pay more than 198 million yuan in compensation in two stages.

In the first stage, Meili will pay about 44.2 million yuan to cover the cost to investigate andclean up the pollutants. The rest of the compensation will be used in the second stage to carry out compensatory restoration, groundwater monitoring and risk control in the area. In its statement, the department of law, regulation and standards also noted the remarkable progress the country has made in enhancing the institutions for the mechanism.

Bie Tao, director of the department, vowed further efforts to promote law-making for the mechanism. “Aside from striving to include ecological and environmental damage compensationinto the Environmental Protection Law and other relevant laws, we will also make efforts to promote research into a specific law for the mechanism,” he said.

1. What does the underlined word “contaminated” in Paragraph 3 probably mean?

A．Dirty.

B．Pure.

C．Tidy.

D．Rich.

2. What does the case of the paper company Meili show?

A．How to make the law.	B．How the mechanism worked.
C．How to monitor groundwater.	D．How the environment was polluted.

3. What will be the focus in the coming years according to Bie Tao?

A．Detailed news about global warming.

B．Clearly defined law for the mechanism.

C．Further research into the paper company.

D．Regular process of environmental protection.

4. What might be the best title for the text?

A．Make polluters pay	B．Keep the earth healthy
C．Stop environmental damage	D．Work harmoniously with each other

10 . The Food and Drug Administration (F. D. A.) announced a new proposal on Wednesday that would change the criteria for which packaged foods the agency considers “healthy”, in an attempt to modernize its approach to nutrition and reduce the burden of diet-related diseases.

Currently, about 5 percent of all packaged foods are labeled “healthy”, according to the agency. The definition, which was set in 1994, allows for food manufacturers to add the word “healthy” to their products, as long as the products have limited amounts of total fat, saturated (饱和的) fat, cholesterol and sodium (钠) and provide at least 10 percent of the daily value of one or more of the following nutrients: vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein or dietary fiber. (Seafood, game meat and raw fruits and vegetables have slightly different criteria.) In 2021, the F. D. A. updated its guidelines to allow for some foods to contain more total fat and to include some that provide at least 10 percent of the daily value of vitamin D. Importantly, there is currently no limit on added sugars under the current definition- an omission that the F. D. A. believes is inconsistent with today’s nutrition science.

“The old rule was really outdated— you could create any kind of Frankenstein food that met the nutrient criteria and label it as healthy,” said Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a professor of nutrition in Boston. “This is a major advance.”

The proposed rule, which the agency announced to coincide with Wednesday’s White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health, introduces a new limit on added sugars-in general, no more than 2.5 grams per serving, although this can vary depending on the food.

The new definition aims to encourage healthy eating by prioritizing a mix of vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy, proteins and certain oils, including vegetable oils.   A “healthy” food would need to contain a minimum amount of at least one of those food groups and be under the proposed limits for saturated fats and added sugars. Raw whole fruits and vegetables would automatically qualify. Many sugary cereals (谷物), highly sweetened yogurts and white breads, which might currently qualify as “healthy” under the existing definition, would be removed under the new rule．

1. What can we know about the old rule?

A．It was set in 1994.

B．It can guarantee people’s health.

C．It has strict limit on added sugar.

D．It was consistent with today’s nutrition science.

2. What’s Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian’s attitude to the new proposal?

A．Negative.

B．Doubtful.

C．Uncaring.

D．Supportive.

3. Which of the following will automatically qualify for the new proposal?

A．Seafood.

B．Highly sweetened yogurts.

C．Raw whole fruits and vegetables.

D．Food containing large amounts of total fat.

4. Where is the text probably taken from?

A．A diary.

B．A textbook.

C．A newspaper.

D．A science fiction.