1 . Las Vegas city in Nevada is built in a desert. The city may be known to the outside world for its partying. But officials have found that there are 21 square kilometers of useless grass. The grass is never laid on, played on or even stepped on. The grass is only there to look nice.
Now, the city is asking the Nevada state legislature (立法机构) to ban useless grass. It is trying to become the first place in America to ban that kind of grass often seen between streets, in housing developments and in office parks.
It is estimated (估计) that useless grass makes up 40% of all the grass in Las Vegas and it needs a lot of water to survive. Grass needs four times more water than dry climate plants like cactus. By tearing out the grass, the city could reduce yearly water usage by 15%.
In 2003, the Southern Nevada Water Authority banned developers from planting grass in front of new homes. It also offered homeowners $30 for each square meter of grass they tear out. But fewer people are now using the program. Water usage has increased in southern Nevada by 9% since 2019. And last year, Las Vegas set a record of 240 days without major rainfall. The Colorado River provides much of Nevada’s drinking water. The river could lose more water as climate change affects it.
Water officials (官员) in other dry cities said water usage needs to be reduced. But they fear the reaction to reforms like the ones in Las Vegas if their communities do not accept them. Cynthia Campbell is the water resources adviser for the city of Phoenix in Arizona. “There might come a point whencity restrictions(限制) get too severe (苛刻的) for some residents (居民). They’ll say that is the point of no return for them,” Campbell said. “For some people, it’s a pool. For some people, it’s grass.”
1. Why does Las Vegas city try to ban useless grass?| A．To protect the local people. | B．To beautify the city. |
| C．To reduce water usage. | D．To reduce waste. |
| A．Allowing planting grass before new houses. |
| B．Encouraging the residents to tear out grass. |
| C．Praising those who don’t sign on the program. |
| D．Awarding those who reduced water usage. |
| A．Many residents won’t follow the ban. |
| B．Reaction to the reform will vary personally. |
| C．Other measures should be taken to protect water. |
| D．Water officials should consider many factors (因素). |
| A．Las Vegas Plans to Ban Useless Grass |
| B．A Method Is Adopted to Save Las Vegas |
| C．Choices between Beauty and Practice |
| D．Grass Is Important but Useless in Las Vegas |
2 . They hide in trees, hang from helicopters, even follow people down on motorcycles—all so that they can snap a shot of a celebrity. They are paparazzi—photographers who make a living by taking pictures of the rich and famous.
This September, California, a state with plenty of celebrities, passed a law aimed at taking action against paparazzi. The law forbids photographers from entering private property to take pictures, from using high-tech devices to take pictures of people on private property, and from “persistently following in order to take a picture.” Violators can be fined or spend time in prison. The United State Congress is considering passing a similar law.
Supporters of the California law say it will protect the privacy of celebrities, whom paparazzi have been bothering for years. Opponents (反对者) say the law restricts photojournalists from doing their job.
Most celebrities seem to like having their pictures taken when they are in public at award shows or other events. After all, it’s free publicity. But when they’re not in public, they say, photographers should leave them alone. Yet paparazzi have been known to secretly look in windows and worse. Actor Michael J. Fox said that paparazzi have even “tried to pretend to be medical personnel at the hospital where my wife was giving birth to our son.”
Celebrities have as much right to their privacy as anyone else, supporters of the law state. Supporters further argue that the California law is a fair way to keep the press at bay, because the law still allows photographers to do their job. It only punishes them, supporters say, when they violate celebrities’ privacy.
Opponents of the law say it violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (美国宪法第一修正案), which guarantees that no laws will be made to limit “the freedom of speech, or of the press.”Although some people might not consider paparazzi a part of the legal press, the California law does not single out paparazzi. It applies to photographers working for any publication.
Opponents of the law are also concerned about its wording. “Does ‘persistently’ mean following someone for six minutes, six seconds, or six days?” asked lawyer Douglas Mirell. The wording of the law is too vague, critics complain, and could be used to punish almost any news photographer.
The United States needs a free press to keep the public informed about important news, paparazzi law opponents say. Limiting the press in any way, they argue, limits the freedom of all.
1. Which of the following will be considered illegal by the new California law?| A．Paparazzi slipping into the house of a famous person to take a shot. |
| B．Paparazzi taking photos of famous people with high-tech cameras. |
| C．Paparazzi hiring helicopters as a fast means of transportation. |
| D．Paparazzi rushing towards filming sites on motorcycles. |
| A．it prevents the media from getting worse |
| B．it gives photographers a fair way to compete |
| C．punishment forces paparazzi to quit their job |
| D．privacy of famous people needs special protection |
| A．it will violate paparazzi’s privacy |
| B．the First Amendment will be changed |
| C．some photographers will be wrongly accused |
| D．people will not be informed of important news |
| A．Critical. | B．Neutral. | C．Approving. | D．Skeptical. |
3 . Foreign drivers will have a pay on-the-spot fines of up to ￡900 for breaking the traffic law to be carried out next month.
If they do not have enough cash or a working credit card, their vehicles will clamped(扣留) until they pay—and they will face an additional fee of ￡80 for getting back their vehicles.
The law will also apply to British citizens. The fines will be described officially as “deposits” when the traffic law takes effect, because the money would be returned if the driver went to court and was found not guilty. In practice, very few foreign drivers are likely to return to Britain to deal with their cases.
Foreign drivers are rarely charged because police cannot take action against them if they fail to appear in court. Instead, officers often merely give warnings.
Three million foreign-registered vehicles enter Britain each year. Polish vehicles make up 36 percent, French vehicles 10 percent and German vehicles 9 percent.
Foreign vehicles are 30 percent more likely to be in a crash than British-registered vehicles. The number of crashes caused by foreign vehicles rose by 47 percent between 2003 and 2008. There were almost 400 deaths and serious injuries and 3,000 slight injuries from accidents caused by foreign vehicles in 2008.
The new law is partly intended to settle the problem of foreign lorry drivers ignoring limits on weight and hours at the wheel. Foreign lorries are three times more likely to be in a crash than British lorries. Recent spot checks found that three quarters of lorries that failed safety tests were registered overseas.
The standard deposit for a careless driving offence —such as driving too close to the vehicle in front or reading a map at the wheel—will be ￡300. Deposits for speeding offences and using mobile phones will be ￡60. Foreign drivers will not get points as punishment added to their licenses, while British drivers will.
1. The first paragraph serves as a(n) ________.| A．explanation | B．introduction |
| C．comment | D．background |
| A．￡60 | B．￡300 |
| C．￡900 | D．￡980 |
| A．many foreign drivers have been fined by Britain police |
| B．300,000 German vehicles enter Britain every year |
| C．25 percent of foreign vehicles entering Britain have failed safety tests |
| D．British drivers will be punished with points and fines for breaking the traffic law |
| A．limit the number of foreign vehicles entering Britain |
| B．increase the Britain government’s additional income |
| C．reduce the rate of traffic accidents and injuries |
| D．get foreign drivers to appear in court |
American Congress first passed the law in 2002．Stores have had to label seafood by country of origin since 2005．But industry pressure delayed other requirements until last week．
Products that must now be labeled include fresh fruits and vegetables, muscle meats and some kinds of nuts．But the rules are complex, and many foods are excluded．For example, organ meats are free to be labeled．So are processed foods, including cooked or smoked food．
The United States has imported more and more food in recent years to save money and expand choices．Country-of-origin labeling has become more common lately but has still been limited in many stores．
Food safety is one reason why some shoppers pay close attention to where foods came from．For example, when a large number of people recently got sick from salmonella（沙门菌病）, officials blamed peppers from Mexico．Yet the last big food scare involved spinach （菠菜） grown in California．But labeling is also a way for people to know they are getting what they want．Some want to buy local foods or foods from a particular country．
The country-of-origin labeling law gives stores 30 days to correct any violations that are found．Stores and suppliers that are found to be deliberately violating the law could be fined 1000 dollars per violation．Federal inspectors are not to take action to enforce the law for six months to give time for an education campaign．
Some food safety activists say they are generally pleased with the law．They call it a good step that will give people more useful information．
1. Why has more and more food been imported to the United States in recent years?
| A．Because it is economical and provides people with more choices． |
| B．Because the United States is short of food supply． |
| C．Because Americans need more and more food recently． |
| D．Because foreign food is of higher quality than native food． |
| A．Stores have to label food by its producing date from now on． |
| B．The country-of-origin labeling has to be marked on more food． |
| C．Stores have to label seafood by country of origin． |
| D．Labeling of food should include more useful information． |
| A．right now | B．in a month |
| C．in three months | D．in half a year |
| A．they are curious about the country of the food origin |
| B．they are particular about the tastes of the food |
| C．they are concerned about food safety and want to get what they want |
| D．most of the shoppers are food safety activists themselves |
I argued，pointing to a very large belly(肚子) of mine，“I am married．I am having a baby．Why should I have to have someone sign for me to drive?”He answered coldly．“It’s the law，madam.”
Henry encouraged me to calm down，just go ahead and get the license and be done with it．“No，”I said．I refused to have him sign for me．So I left without a Maryland license．
I called the North Carolina Motor Vehicle office and renewed my NC license by mail--using my name Susan Brown．And thus it was for the next twelve years．Since Henry was in the army I could drive under my home state license．By the time Henry left the army we were once again living in Maryland，and I had to take the Maryland driver’s exam．Since then I just go in and renew every four years--sign the name Susan Brown，have my new picture taken, and walk out with a license to drive．
1. Susan got her first driver’s license_______．
| A．before she got married to Henry |
| B．when she was twenty years old |
| C．after she finished high school |
| D．when she just moved to Maryland |
| A．she was forbidden to drive by Maryland law |
| B．she lacked driving experience in Maryland |
| C．she was to give birth to a baby soon |
| D．she insisted on signing for herself |
| A．American males should serve in the army |
| B．different states may have different laws |
| C．people have to renew their licenses in their home states |
| D．women should adopt their husbands’ family names after marriage |
