1 . Peru is prepared to approve new laws that would make it easier to investigate and punish researchers who engage in academic cheating, including paying to have their names added to a paper.
The move comes as Peru’s national science agency seeks to crack down on authorship buying and other dishonest practices. It recently removed two scientists accused of dishonest publications from a national registry that is key to receiving government sponsor, job promotions, and salary bonuses. And officials are investigating more than 170 other researchers at a Peruvian media report claimed were involved in academic misconduct, including 72 listed n the national registry who work at 14 universities in Peru.
The new laws will empower universities and government officials to punish such behavior. Dishonest publishing practices “transcend mere moral misbehavior” because they enable researchers to obtain government and private funding without telling the truth, says Edward Málaga Trillo, a member of Congress who is the driving force behind the bills, which lawmakers are expected to finalize early this year. “These individuals are operating academic cheating.”
Peru’s academic community has been struggling with a rising tide of false authorship and related problems. One cause, some researchers say, is a 2014 law that aimed to stimulate research by rewarding researchers who boost their publishing output. For example, under a scoring system used by universities, researchers can earn five points for authorship in a high-impact journal, and two points when the journal is lower impact. A massing points can bring bonus payments and career promotion.
Signs of dishonest publishing can be obvious, notes Nahuel Monteblanco, president of Cientificos. pe, a Peruvian group that investigates misconduct. Many of the papers cited by Punto Final have numerous co-authors from different nations with few prior publications on the same subject. “If your colleague consistently publishes 20 articles a year with co-authors from other countries, that’s highly suspect,” Monteblanco says.
1. What action did Peru take recently to address academic cheating?| A．Fining 72 offenders for academic dishonesty. |
| B．Disqualifying 2 scientists from a national registry. |
| C．Punishing 170 researchers for academic misconduct. |
| D．Withdrawing government fund from 14 universities. |
| A．Change. | B．Strengthen. | C．Go beyond. | D．Approve of. |
| A．It advocated a fair scoring system. | B．It applied to high-impact journals. |
| C．It led to an increase in false authorship. | D．It aimed to punish dishonest publishing. |
| A．career promotion | B．consistent research focus |
| C．few citations by Punto Final | D．co-authors from various countries |
2 . On Thursday, June 28th, California passed the country’s toughest online laws. Starting January 1st, 2020, this law will allow consumers to ask an online organization what data is being held about them, why they require this data, and if there is any other company the organization will be sharing the data with. They can also request the removal of this information, and choose not to take part in the sale of personal data.
Many people reacted very favorably towards this new law, but big organizations like Google are against it. So why did California decide to create stricter online laws?
A man named Alastair Mactaggart, who is a real estate developer, spent more than 3 million dollars and secured more than 600,000 signatures on a ballot initiative. Ballot initiatives are petitions (请愿书) that are put to a public vote after receiving a certain number of signatures.
In an article from National Public Radio, Mactaggart recalled the moment when he became a privacy advocate. About four years ago, during a party, he asked a Google engineer whether he should be worried about his online privacy. The engineer responded by saying that “If you just knew how much we know about you, you’d be really worried.”
California’s lawmakers, to his relief, rushed to pass the bill. The law that was passed in June was close enough to the ballot initiative so Mactaggart agreed to withdraw it.
People believe that this new law will make companies more accountable for how they handle their information. However, it is not without loopholes (漏洞).
Under this new law, companies won’t be able to sell people’s personal information, but they can still “share” it. In the next few months, this new law could be modified. Companies such as Google are constantly trying to change the law in their favor, since data is a huge asset (财产) for these large enterprises.
The state’s lawmakers are expecting to create “clean-up laws” after the first 18 months the law goes into effect. We will have to wait and see how the law develops as it gets changed.
1. What is the purpose of the new law?| A．To protect online privacy. | B．To charge for online information. |
| C．To collect personal information legally. | D．To encourage the development of the Internet. |
| A．He once worked for Google. |
| B．He took part in the law-making process. |
| C．He was in favor of the lawmakers’ decision. |
| D．He was worried about the future of his business. |
| A．Sell its users’ personal information. | B．Share its users’ personal information. |
| C．Get support from the government. | D．Charge its users money. |
| A．Passed. | B．Explained. | C．Prepared. | D．Improved. |
3 . 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. |
4 . Learning to drive is important to the independence of teenagers, but it is also a great responsibility. Although having a law that keeps 16-year-old drivers from having more than one teenager in the car with them at first seems unfair, there are convincing reasons for this requirement.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports that teens are four times more likely than older drivers to be involved in an automobile accident. It also reports that 16-and-17-year-old drivers are twice as likely to have an accident if they have two teenage friends in the car and four times as likely to have one if they have three or more teenage friends in the car with them. Fatal (致命的) crashes of 16-year-old drivers involve the highest percentage of speeding, driver error, and number of passengers. This information is enough to cause any reasonable person to wonder about the wisdom of allowing new teen drivers to take a carload of friends anywhere, even if the law permits it.
A study at the National Institutes of Health indicates that the part of the human brain that controls judgment and evaluates the consequences of our actions might not be fully formed until the age of 25. Until this study, researchers had placed the age at 18. If this is true, it could explain the reckless (鲁莽的) behavior of many teens, behavior that often extends into their twenties. It also could be a strong reason for being cautious about the driving circumstances of young people.
This is not the only study that indicates such caution is necessary. One study at Temple University in Philadelphia examines the results of peer pressure in risky driving situations. The study, which uses a driving game, has an individual guide a car through a course, both alone and in the presence of friends. Three different age groups participated in the study: 13-16, 18-22, and 24 and older. Members of the oldest group showed caution whether driving alone or with friends present, but the two younger groups took more chances when they were with their friends. Furthermore, because these drivers were accustomed to the noise and distraction of many passengers, they were unable to see their own mistakes. Once again, this is a good indication that a law restricting the number of teenagers in the car with a young driver is a good idea.
1. What does the author mainly tell us in Paragraph 2?| A．Many deaths have occurred because of inexperience and overconfidence. |
| B．It’s reasonable to severely limit the passenger number of teen drivers. |
| C．New teen drivers have to ask permission before driving with friends. |
| D．There are many causes behind the teens’ driving accidents. |
| A．different age groups have different peer pressure |
| B．teenagers often give wrong judgments above passengers’ noise |
| C．underdeveloped brain makes teens ignore their mistakes |
| D．driving circumstances are bound up with the risk of accidents |
| A．protect teens on the highway | B．raise teens’ sense of responsibility |
| C．reduce the number of fatal crashes | D．force teens to drive with caution |
| A．Some teenagers have risky behavior while driving. |
| B．Certain laws treat teenagers and adults differently. |
| C．We still need more studies on teen driving. |
| D．Driving is important to a teenager’s sense of independence. |
5 . 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. |
6 . “There is one and only one social responsibility of business,” wrote Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, “that is, to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.” But even if you accept Friedman’s statement and regard corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies as a waste of shareholders’ money, things may not be absolutely clear-cut. New research suggests that CSR may create monetary value for companies at least when they are charged with corruption (腐败).
The largest firms in America and Britain together spend more than $15 billion a year on CSR, according to an estimate by EPG, a consulting firm. This could add value to their businesses in three ways. First, consumers may take CSR spending as a “signal” that a company’s products are of high quality. Second, customers may be willing to buy a company’s products as an indirect way to donate to the good causes it helps. And third, through a more diffuse (分散的) “halo effect” its good deeds earn it greater consideration from consumers and others.
Previous studies on CSR have had trouble distinguishing these effects because consumers can be affected by all three. A recent study attempts to separate them by looking at bribery prosecutions (起诉) under American’s Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). It argues that since prosecutors do not consume a company’s products as part of their investigations, they could be influenced only by the halo effect.
The study finds that, among prosecuted firms, those with the most comprehensive CSR programmes tend to get more lenient punishments. Their analysis rules out the possibility that it is the firm’s political influence, rather than its CSR stance, that accounts for the leniency: Companies that contribute more to political campaigns do not receive lower fines.
In all, the study concludes that whereas prosecutors should only evaluate a case based on its merits, they do seem to be influenced by a company’s record in CSR. “We estimate that either eliminating a substantial labor-rights concern, such as child labor, or increasing corporate giving by about 20% result in fines that generally are 40% lower than the typical punishment for bribing foreign officials.” says one researcher.
Researchers admit that their study does not answer the question at how much businesses ought to spend on CSR. Nor does it reveal how much companies are relying on the halo effect, rather than the other possible benefits, when companies get into trouble with the law, evidence of good character can win them a less costly punishment.
1. The author views Milton Friedman’s statement about CSR with___________.| A．uncertainty | B．interest | C．approval | D．tolerance |
| A．guarding it against malpractices | B．protecting it from consumers |
| C．winning trust from consumers | D．raising the quality of its products |
| A．less debatable | B．more lasting | C．more effective | D．less severe |
| A．comes across as reliable evidence | B．has an impact on their decision |
| C．is considered part of the investigation | D．increases the chance of being punished |
7 . 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. |
| A．Greatly changed climate. | B．More convenient stores. |
| C．Stable fuel economy standards. | D．Eco-friendly transport system. |
| 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. |
| A．Supportive. | B．Disapproving. |
| C．Shocked. | D．Confident. |
8 . 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 |
9 . 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. |
10 . Michael Jackson had Bubbles, a chimpanzee(黑猩猩). Justin Bieber had Og Mally, a capuchin(卷尾猴), until it was seized by German customs officials and put in a zoo. Rihanna has been photographed bottle-feeding a baby monkey on holiday. The stars would find few fans in the British government, which on December 12, 2020 placed new restrictions on keeping primates(灵长目动物)as pets. Somewhere between 1,000 and 5,000 marmoserts, lemurs, tamarins and other little species of primates are kept in private ownership in Britain, the government says, often bored to misery.
One of the benefits of cutting loose from the European continent is that Britain can fully express its passion for animals. Politicians are only too happy to work for it, for pet-friendly policies are cheap and popular. In the previous election, the Tory Party promised to help reunite missing pets with their owners by making it compulsory to put chips into the bodies of cats and dogs, and to deal with animal smuggling(走私). The Labour Party promised to ban the live-boiling of lobsters in restaurants.
Yet, Britain’s animal welfare laws are already among the most comprehensive in the world, according to the Animal Protection Index.
Wild animals in traveling circuses were banned by law last year, but a decreasing public appetite for parades of elephants and tigers balanced on chairs had already put an end to the business. By the time the ban came into force, only two licensed animal circuses were left in Britain. Members of Parliament are moved by the sad loss of pets because of motor accidents. James Daly has proposed Gizmo’s Law, named after a cat, the victim of a hit-and-run accident, which was burned without its owner’s knowledge. The law requires that dead animals be brought back from the roadside to scan them for microchips, so that they can be reunited with their brokenhearted owners rather than being burned without their names being known. A draft bill in 2018 proposed criminalizing drivers who failed to stop after striking a cat. Hit-and-runs on dogs, pigs, goats and humans are already illegal.
1. What does the author want to introduce by mentioning the three stars in Paragraph 1?| A．A recent pet-friendly policy in Britain. |
| B．British people’s passion for animals. |
| C．A trend towards keeping primates as pets. |
| D．The present situation of primates in Britain. |
| A．They’re two-faced about animal welfare. |
| B．They disapprove of European animal welfare. |
| C．They used to blame each other on animal welfare. |
| D．They devoted to making laws on animal welfare. |
| A．To track the hit-and-run driver. |
| B．To help the animals find their way home. |
| C．To inform their owners of the accidents. |
| D．To find out the exact locations of the accidents. |
| A．Animal welfare: all you need to know |
| B．Could Britain be a leader in animal welfare? |
| C．Could animal welfare plans be smart politics? |
| D．Animal welfare: a favorite issue for politicians. |
