1 . 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. |
| A．How to make the law. | B．How the mechanism worked. |
| C．How to monitor groundwater. | D．How the environment was polluted. |
| 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. |
| A．Make polluters pay | B．Keep the earth healthy |
| C．Stop environmental damage | D．Work harmoniously with each other |
2 . 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. |
To deal with the challenges in protecting the Great Wall of the ancient Qi state, the
“Historical records say the Qi state built the wall here to defend itself
Rapid development
The new regulation states that local governments will establish a dynamic protection system
4 . What happens when the right to know comes up against the right not to know? The ease of genetic testing has brought this question to light. Two
Both cases involve Huntington’s disease (HD). whose
In the British case,
The German case is in some ways the mirror image of the British one. Unlike in Britain, in Germany the right not to know genetic information is protected in law.
Both cases test a legal grey area. If the right to know is
It is the law’s job to
| A．remarkable | B．distinct | C．contrasting | D．dominant |
| A．consequences | B．symptoms | C．indications | D．diagnoses |
| A．influenced | B．affected | C．inherited | D．annoyed |
| A．scheduled | B．determined | C．approved | D．implemented |
| A．possession | B．status | C．health | D．identity |
| A．revealing | B．sharing | C．reminding | D．concealing |
| A．convinced | B．suspicious | C．infected | D．positive |
| A．Nevertheless | B．Thus | C．Additionally | D．Fundamentally |
| A．in advance of | B．in the course of | C．at the close of | D．at the risk of |
| A．inevitable | B．inextinguishable | C．incurable | D．intolerable |
| A．as a result | B．after all | C．above all | D．in return |
| A．financially | B．academically | C．legally | D．culturally |
| A．on occasion | B．by comparison | C．in effect | D．for example |
| A．reserve | B．balance | C．defend | D．draft |
| A．lawmakers | B．victims | C．patients | D．doctors |
5 . 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 legislation， which follows a campaign promise by French President Emmanuel Macron， also bans tablets and smart watches．
The ban is 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 legislation 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 enforcement， 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-Ccssou 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 main reason for school violence． |
| B．The society should be strict with the school students． |
| C．New technology should be properly applied at school． |
| D．None of the young students should have mobile phones． |
| A．The school administrators． | B．The student monitors． |
| C．The students' parents． | D．The Education Minister． |
| 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． |
6 . With the possible exception of equal rights, perhaps the most controversial issue across the United States today is the death penalty. Many argue that it is an effective deterrent (威慑) to murder, while others maintain there is no convincing evidence that the death penalty reduces the number of murders.
The principal argument advanced by those opposed to the death penalty, basically, is that it is cruel and inhuman punishment, which is the mark of a brutal society, and finally that it is of questionable effectiveness as a deterrent to crime anyway.
In our opinion, the death penalty is a necessary evil. Throughout recorded history there have always been those extreme individuals in every society who were capable of terribly violent crimes such as murder. But some are more extreme than others.
For example, it is one thing to take the life of another in a fit of blind rage, but quite another to coldly plot and carry out the murder of one or more people in the style of a butcher. Thus, murder, like all other crimes, is a matter of relative degree. While it could be argued with some conviction that the criminal in the first instance should be merely separated from society, such should not be the fate of the latter type murderer.
The value of the death penalty as a deterrent to crime may be open to debate. But the overwhelming majority of citizens believe that the death penalty protects them. Their belief is strengthened by evidence which shows that the death penalty deters murder. For example, from 1954 to 1963, when the death penalty was consistently imposed in California, the murder rate remained between three and four murders for each 100,000 population. Since 1964 the death penalty has been carried out only once, and the murder rate has risen to 10.4 murders for each 100,000 population. The sharp climb in the state’s murder rate, which began when executions stopped, is no coincidence. It is convincing evidence that the death penalty does deter many murderers. If the bill reestablishing the death penalty is banned, innocent people will be murdered—some whose lives may have been saved if the death penalty were in effect. This is literally a life or death matter. The lives of thousands of innocent people must be protected.
1. The principal purpose of this passage is to________.| A．speak for the majority | B．initiate a ban |
| C．criticize the government | D．argue for the value of the death penalty |
| A．negative | B．friendly |
| C．supportive | D．neutral |
| A．the death penalty is the most controversial issue in the United States today |
| B．the ban of the bill reestablishing the death penalty is of little importance |
| C．the second type of murderers should be sentenced to death |
| D．the value of the death penalty as a deterrent to crime is not to be debated |
| A．the effects of execution and the effects of isolation |
| B．the murder rate and the imposition of the death penalty |
| C．the importance of equal rights and that of the death penalty |
| D．executions and murders |
| A．opposing | B．supporting |
| C．neutral | D．not clear |
7 . The Pacific nation of Palau will soon ban many types of sunscreen in an effort to protect its coral reefs.
President Tommy Remengesau Jr, signed legislation (法令) recently that bans “reef toxic” (对珊瑚有毒) sunscreen beginning in 2020. The law defines reef toxic sunscreen as containing any one of 10 chemicals, including oxybenzone. Other chemicals may also be banned.
Officials will take banned sunscreens from visitors who carry them into the country, Businesses that sell the banned products will be fined up to $1,000.
In a statement, Remengesau said that the punishments find the right balance between “educating tourists and scaring them away.”
The law also requires tour operators to start providing customers with reusable cups, drinking straws and food containers.
The president said the legislation was introduced based on information from a 2017 report. The report found that sunscreen products were widespread in Palau’s famous Jelly fish Lake. The lake was closed for more than a year because of a decrease in jellyfish numbers. It was recently reopened.
The president also noted that plastic waste, chemical pollution, and climate change all threaten the country’s environmental health.
Scientists have found that some chemicals in sunscreen can be toxic to coral reefs. The reels are an important part of the ocean environment and popular with tourists, But some critics say there are not enough independent scientific studies on the issue. Others worry that people will suffer from too much sun contact if they stop using the products.
Some manufacturers have already started selling “reef-friendly” sunscreen.
Palau is located east of the Philippines and north of Indonesia. The nation is home to 21,000 people. Its economy depends on tourism and fishing.
1. What can we learn about Palau’s new legislation?| A．It contributes to the balance of nature. |
| B．It benefits the health of the tourists. |
| C．It allows for environmental protection. |
| D．It is based on a scientific research. |
| A．They will be put into prison. |
| B．Their sunscreens will be taken away. |
| C．They will be fined up to $1,000 |
| D．They will be driven out of the country. |
| A．Reef-toxic sunscreen contains 10 chemicals. |
| B．Jellyfish Lake was once closed and reopened in 2017. |
| C．Tourists to Palau have suffered much from sun contact. |
| D．“Reef-friendly” sunscreen are on sale in Palau. |
| A．Palau Carried out New Legislation |
| B．Sunscreen Products Are Reef-toxic |
| C．Palau to Ban Sunscreen to Save Its Coral Reefs |
| D．Palau to Sell “Reef-friendly” Sunscreen |
