1 . A bill to conserve endangered species was passed by the U.S. House in a 231-to-190 vote on Tuesday.
The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act would create an annual fund of more than $1.3 billion, given to states, and territories for wildlife conservation on the ground. While threatened species have been recognized and protected under the Endangered Species Act since 1973, that law does not provide constant funding to actively maintain their numbers.
The effort comes as scientists and international organizations sound the alarm about accelerating species decline.
“Too many people don’t realize that about one-third of our wildlife is at increased risk of extinction,” said lead House sponsor Debbie Ding-ell, echoing (呼应) a recent study about climate change.
In the United States, there are more than 1,600 endangered or threatened species, but state agencies have identified more than 7 times that number in need of conservation assistance in their wildlife action plans.
“The bottom line is, when we save wildlife we save for ourselves,” said Collin O’ Mara, CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, which supports the bill. He said species loss threatens everything from the insects that pollinate (授粉) plants in the food chain, to sea life that helps to reduce damages to coastlines from storm.
The bill would improve a 1937 law, the Pittman-Robertson Act, which was passed in response to decreasing game and waterfowl species. That law allows states to tax hunting supplies to pay for wildlife and habitat restoration, but that money is not enough to do the same for non-game species.
The act would also invest more in conservation than the existing program for threatened non-game species, called the State Wildlife Grant Program, which awarded states a total of $56 million this year.
1. What do we know about the Endangered Species Act?| A．It does not involve continuous funding. |
| B．It was passed by the House this Tuesday. |
| C．It has proved to be a failed Act. |
| D．It ensured the population of all the species. |
| A．Human behavior causes species to decline. |
| B．People’s efforts matter a lot in conservation. |
| C．People lack awareness of animal protection. |
| D．The decline of species is beyond imagination. |
| A．To indicate they are at risk of dying out. |
| B．To illustrate how to protect them properly. |
| C．To show they’re more important than others. |
| D．To tell man and nature are an organic whole. |
| A．Entertainment. | B．News. | C．Technology. | D．Health. |
2 . 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. |
3 . 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. |
4 . 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. |
5 . My generation — people born after 1990 — are accustomed to “all-in-platform” life, where we use mobile apps of different platforms to do almost everything in life.
For instance, I ordered a cup of coffee on Monday using an online delivery app. Then, I called a taxi by tapping on the app of a ride-booking service. Next, I bought some necessities on shopping platform Taobao. That done, I moved on to various other online destinations to get my daily fix of music, reading, social networking and so forth.
Platforms now play an increasingly important role in almost all aspects of day-to-day life, not just in economic and political processes. Consumption and social interaction are closely linked to platforms now.
But, I began to get confused recently. I thought I was being treated differently. My friend and I called a taxi at the same time on a ride-hailing platform (打车平台) and found that for the same destination, the prices were different. The price indicated on my phone was higher. One of the potential reasons could have been that I regularly use the ride-hailing platform and have a higher ranking while my friend doesn’t use it that often. So, the ride-hailing platform offers discounts to newbies like her, to attract and have such customers.
China’s latest efforts in regulating monopolistic or improper market behavior are of great significance in protecting consumers’ lawful rights.
“The essence of platform-based monopoly (垄断) is that a large number of users are gathered on only a select few platform companies, leading to uneven data gathering different platforms. But in China some platforms use their own data and traffic (流量) to expand capital in a disorderly way,” said Wang Yong, deputy director of the Institute of Economics at Tinghua University.
Data monopoly also brought another inconvenience for comumers — platforms block links to each other. For instance, link to WeChat Pay of Tencent is not available on Alibuba’s Taobao while there is no Alipay link on JD app’s payment options.
Last year, Meituan was charged with preventing customers from using Alipay as a payment option on Meituan apps and platforms.
In July, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology launched a six-month special rectification (专项治理) for the internet industry, asking platform operators to stop blocking each other’s link.
“More efforts should also be made to strike a good balance between personal information protection and interconnectivity between platforms Companies are being encouraged to further develop data encryption (加密) technology so that the data are available but not visible.”
1. What is the author’s purpose in writing Para.2?| A．To offer some tips on using apps on mobile phone. |
| B．To share his experience with mobile apps. |
| C．To further explain what is “all-in-platform” life. |
| D．To help readers familiarize themselves with mobile apps. |
| A．The author encountered so called “big data price discrimination”. |
| B．The author and his friend were treated differently by taxi drivers. |
| C．Due to the author's higher ranking, the platform offered him a cheaper price. |
| D．The ride-hailing platform offers discounts to regular customers. |
| A．to gather personal information |
| B．to expand capital |
| C．to protect consumers' rights |
| D．to use their data and traffic wisely |
| A．Sympathetic. | B．Approving. |
| C．Critical. | D．Grateful. |
| A．Data monopolies and the inconvenience they bring to mobile app life. |
| B．Mobile apps have greatly changed our lives. |
| C．How to protect personal information on mobile apps. |
| D．Platforms have impacted every aspect of our daily lives. |
6 . 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. |
| A．Negative. | B．Doubtful. | C．Uncaring. | D．Supportive. |
| A．Seafood. |
| B．Highly sweetened yogurts. |
| C．Raw whole fruits and vegetables. |
| D．Food containing large amounts of total fat. |
| A．A diary. | B．A textbook. | C．A newspaper. | D．A science fiction. |
7 . Are you the only child in your family? If so, do you enjoy it or do you want more siblings（兄弟姐妹）?
On May 31, a key meeting of the Communist Party of China unveiled a policy that would allow all couples to have up to three children.
The move is expected to maximize the population's role in driving economic and social growth, since this is a critical time for China to transform the world's most populous country into a powerhouse（强国）with a quality workforce, according to the National Health Commission.
The three-child policy is also expected to prevent the decline in the nation's birthrate and address the challenge of a rapidly aging population, China Daily reported.
China's annual number of newborns has fallen for four years in a row. The country's total birthrate—the average number of children born to each woman—stood at 1.3 in 2020. The number is below the rate of 2.1 that would maintain a stable population, according to the National Bureau of Statistics.
The declining birthrate has also brought a sharp increase in the proportion of the population aged 60 or above, rising from 10.3 percent to 18.7 percent in the past decade. An increasingly elderly population will increase the cost of labor and the pressure on the social security net. It also means there will be a lack of young labor force. Therefore, it's not good for economic growth, according to Chen Youhua, a professor at Nanjing University.
In fact, the new birth policy is a step to further relax the family planning policy. The one-child policy was introduced in the 1970s and aimed to control the fast-growing population. Then in 2013, China allowed couples to have a second child if either parent was an only child, and in 2016, all couples were allowed to have two children.
However, not all people have shown their support for this latest policy. Many couples complained about the rising costs of raising a child. A netizen named Qinfeng commented, "High cost of education and both the physical and mental exhaustion stopped me from having more than one child." Also, many women are reluctant（不情愿的）to give birth because that could mean sacrificing their career prospects, according to Mu Guangzong, a professor at Peking University.
In that case, Mu noted that it is better to implement supporting measures with the three-child policy, such as more preferential（优惠的）policies for couples that would ease their parental burden.
1. What might NOT be the main cause for the new policy?| A．To increase the population's role. |
| B．To stop the declining birthrate. |
| C．To improve the child- care service system. |
| D．To address the challenge of the aging population. |
| A．China's annual number of newborns has fallen for decades. |
| B．The government will protect the legal rights of women in employment. |
| C．Measures will be taken to improve the high-quality education. |
| D．The new policy allows couples to have up to three children. |
| A．To carry out. | B．To get along with. |
| C．To make use of. | D．To have a command of. |
| A．To show his love of children healthcare. |
| B．To introduce the new family size policy. |
| C．To share his concerns about birthrate. |
| D．To emphasize the physical and mental exhaustion. |
8 . 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. |
| 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. |
| A．Feeling grateful. | B．Lacking confidence. |
| C．Showing strong passion. | D．Having little money. |
| A．Objective. | B．Doubtful. | C．Favorable. | D．Critical. |
9 . New York has become the most recent state to ban the sale of some animals in pet stores. A new law signed by Governor Kathy Hochul bans the sale of dogs, cats, and rabbits in retail shops. The new law encourages pet stores to work with animal rescue groups and shelters to make space for rescued animals that are available for adoption.
California was the first state to pass a retail ban in 2017. Maryland followed in 2018 and a statewide ban in Illinois went into effect in February. Maine and Washington passed laws that ban the sales in new pet stores. Now, more than 300 cities and counties throughout the United States have passed pet-sale bans. There are at least 10,000 commercial pet stores in the country, and fewer than 3,000 of them are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, according to the estimates from the Humane Society of the United States.
In these commercial pet stores, animals are usually kept in dirty, crowded cages with limited access to medical care and human interaction. They often don’t get enough to eat or drink, have little protection from cold or heat; and don’t have a separate place to go to the bathroom. Many animals raised in the commercial pet stores go on to have physical and emotional problems.
Although conditions are often horrible, commercial pet stores are usually legal unless authorities are called in to close those with extremely inhumane (不人道的) conditions. “Dogs, cats, and rabbits across New York deserve loving homes and humane treatment,” Governor Hochul said in a statement. “I’m proud to sign this law, which will make meaningful steps to cut down on bad treatment and protect the welfare of animals across the state.” However, some pet store owners have argued that the law will cause a large quantity of pet stores in New York to close.
1. What is the new law signed by Governor Kathy Hochul about?| A．Avoiding abusing pets. |
| B．Preventing adopting pets. |
| C．Forbidding distributing pets. |
| D．Forbidding trading certain pets in pet stores. |
| A．The operation mode of commercial pet stores. |
| B．The problems faced by commercial pet stores. |
| C．The poor living conditions of the pets in pet stores. |
| D．The physical and emotional problems of some animals. |
| A．It is well received. |
| B．It is highly profitable. |
| C．It takes ages to see the results. |
| D．It may also have its shortcoming. |
| A．New York state offers medical care to animals |
| B．New York state bans pet stores from selling some animals |
| C．New York state assists pet store owners with laws |
| D．New York state ignores the horrible conditions of pets |
10 . New Zealand has announced it will outlaw smoking for the next generation, so that those who are aged 14 and under today will never be legally able to buy tobacco.
New legislation (法规) means the legal smoking age will increase every year, to create a smoke-free generation of New Zealanders, associate Health Minister Dr Ayesha Verrall said on Thursday. “This is a historic day for the health of our people,” she said.
The government announced the rising age alongside other measures to make smoking unaffordable and inaccessible, to try to reach its goal of making the country entirely smoke-free within the next four years. Other measures include reducing the legal amount of nicotine in tobacco products to very low levels, cutting down the shops where cigarettes could legally be sold, and increasing funding to addiction services. The new laws will not restrict vape (电子烟) sales.
New Zealand's daily smoking rates have been dropping over time - down to 11.65% in 2018, from 18% a decade earlier. But smoking rates for Maori and Pacifika were far higher - 29% for Maori and 18% for Pasifika. “If nothing changes, it would be decades till Maori smoking rates fall below 5%,” Verrall said. She said to end smoking in the next four years was within reach: “I believe it is. The issue is, though, if we don't change what we’re doing, we won’t make it for Maori - and that’s what the plan is really focused on”.
Smoking has already been widely replaced by vaping among teenage New Zealanders, which is also attracting many young people who would never have taken up smoking - according to surveying of 19,000 high school students this year, nearly 20% were vaping daily or several times a day, the majority with high nicotine doses. That’s compared to 3% of those aged 15-17 who smoked daily in 2018, or 13% who smoked a decade earlier.
Verrall said the legislation would be introduced in 2022, with the age limits coming in in 2023.
1. What’s the final goal of the new legislation?| A．To forbid the people aged 14 and under to buy tobacco. |
| B．To make the country entirely smoke-free within years. |
| C．To make buying tobacco hard. |
| D．To increase the legal smoking age. |
| A．Everyone is allowed to purchase tobacco with permit. |
| B．Purchase of smoking becomes easier and less pricy. |
| C．The vape sales will be greatly influenced. |
| D．It benefits the building of a smoke-free generation. |
| A．New Zealand’s daily smoking rate is quite low. |
| B．It has taken a long time to decrease the rate of smoking. |
| C．Smoking rates are not equal among different parts in New Zealand. |
| D．The smoking rate will be higher over the years. |
| A．A Historic Day of Smoking |
| B．Decreasing Smoking Rate of New Zealand |
| C．Vape-replacement of Tobacco |
| D．New Zealand to Ban Smoking for Next Generation |
