1 . 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 |
2 . 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. |
3 . Good afternoon, and welcome to England. We hope that your visit here will be a pleasant one. Today, I would like to draw your attention to a few of our laws.
The first one is about drinking. Now, you may not buy alcohol (酒) in this country if you are under 18 years of age, nor may your friends buy it for you.
Secondly, noise. Enjoy yourselves by all means, but please don’t make unnecessary noise, particularly at night. We ask you to respect other people who may wish to be quiet.
Thirdly, crossing the road. Be careful! The traffic moves on the left side of the road in this country. Use pedestrian crossings (人行横道) and do not take any chances when crossing the road.
My next point is about litter (throwing away waste material in a public place). It is an offence (违法行为) to drop litter in the street. When you have something to throw away, please put it in your pocket and take it home, or put it in a litter bin.
Finally, as regards something, it is against the law to buy cigarettes or tobacco (烟草) if you are under 16 years of age.
I’d like to finish by saying that if you require any sort of help or assistance, you should contact your local police station, who will be pleased to help you.
Now, are there any questions?
1. How many laws are there discussed in the speech?| A．Three. | B．Four. | C．Five. | D．Six. |
| A．get along with | B．join | C．report | D．get in touch with |
| A．in this country, if you are under 18 years of age, you may not buy alcohol, but your friend can buy it for you |
| B．you may not buy cigarettes or tobacco unless you are above 16 years of age |
| C．because the traffic moves on the left side of the road, you must use pedestrian crossings, when crossing the road |
| D．you can’t make noise except at night |
| A．A policeman. | B．A worker at a hotel. | C．A lawyer. | D．An air hostess (空姐). |
4 . Las Vegas city in Nevada is built in a desert. The city may be known to the 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.
Useless grass nearly makes up 40% of all the grass in Las Vegas and it needs lots of water to survive. Grass needs four times more water than dry climate plants. 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 here 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 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. “The city restrictions (限制) may get too hard 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．Awarding those who reduced water usage. |
| C．Praising those who signed on the program. |
| D．Encouraging the residents to tear out grass. |
| A．Many residents won’t follow the ban. |
| B．Reaction to the reform will vary personally. |
| C．Water officials should consider many factors. |
| D．Other measures should be taken to protect water. |
| 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 |
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. |
6 . 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. |
7 . 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. |
8 . 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 |
9 . 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. |
10 . A Dutch city will become the first in the world to ban meat adverts from public spaces in an effort to reduce consumption and greenhouse gas emissions (排放). Haarlem, which lies to the west of Amsterdam and has a population of 160,000, will pass the prohibition from 2024 after meat was added to a list of products thought to contribute to the climate crisis.
Adverts will not be allowed on Haarlem’s buses, shelters and screens in public spaces, causing complaints from the meat sector that the city government is “going too far in telling people what’s best for them”.
Recent studies suggest global food production is responsible for one-third of all planet-heating emissions, with the use of animals for meat accounting for twice the pollution of producing plant-based foods. Forests that absorb carbon dioxide are cut down for the grazing (放牧) of animals while fertilizers used for growing their feed are rich in nitrogen (氮), which can contribute to air and water pollution and climate change. Livestock also produces large quantities of methane (甲烷), a powerful greenhouse gas.
Ziggy Klazes, a councilor from the GroenLinks party, who drafted (起草) the law banning meat advertising, said she had not known the city would be the world’s first to enforce (执行) such a policy when she proposed it. She told the Haarlem 105 radio channel, “We are not about what people are baking and roasting in their own kitchen; if people wanted to continue eating meat, fine… Of course, there are a lot of people who find the decision unacceptable, but there are also a lot of people who think it’s fine.”
The ban also covers holiday flights, fossil fuels and cars that run on fossil fuels. The ban is delayed until 2024 due to existing contracts with companies that sell the products.
Research suggests that to meet the EU target of net zero emissions by 2050, meat consumption must be reduced to 24kg per person per year, compared with the current average of 82kg or 75.8kg in the Netherlands, which is the EU’s biggest meat exporter.
1. What does the underlined word prohibition in paragraph 1 probably mean?| A．Ban | B．city | C．climate | D．population |
| A．Acceptable | B．Dissatisfied | C．Uncared | D．Supportive |
| A．The seriousness of air pollution. |
| B．The benefits of eating plant-based foods. |
| C．The reasons for banning meat adverts in public. |
| D．The importance of protecting the environment. |
| A．24kg per person | B．82kg per person |
| C．75.8 per person | D．105kg per person |
