1 . Progressives often support diversity missions as a path to equality and a way to level the playing field. But all too often such policies are an insincere form of virtue-signaling that benefits only the most privileged and does little to help average people.
A pair of bills sponsored by Massachusetts state Senator Jason Lewis and House Speaker Pro Tempore Patricia Haddad, to ensure "gender equality" on boards and commissions, provide a case in point.
Haddad and Lewis are concerned that more than half the state-government board are less than 40 percent female. In order to ensure that elite women have more such opportunities, they have proposed imposing government quotas（配额）. If the bills become law, state boards and commissions will be required to set aside 50 percent of board seats for women by 2022.
The bills are similar to a measure recently adopted in California, which last year became the first state to require gender quotas for private companies. In signing the measure, California Governor Jerry Brown admitted that the law, which clearly classifies people on the basis of sex, is probably unconstitutional.
The US Supreme Court frowns on sex-based classifications unless they are designed to address an "important" policy interest. Because the California law applies to all boards, even where there is no history of prior discrimination, courts are likely to rule that the law violates the constitutional guarantee of "equal protection".
But are such government mandates even necessary? Female participation on corporate boards may not currently mirror the percentage of women in the general population, but so what?
The number of women on corporate boards has been steadily increasing without government interference. According to a study by Catalyst, between 2010 and 2015 the share of women on the boards of global corporations increased by 54 percent.
Requiring companies to make gender the primary qualification for board membership will inevitably lead to less experienced private sector boards. That is exactly what happened when Norway adopted a nationwide corporate gender quota.
Writing in The New Republic, Alice Lee notes that increasing the number of opportunities for board membership without increasing the pool of qualified women to serve on such boards has led to a "golden skirt "phenomenon, where the same elite women occupy multiple seats on a variety of boards.
Next time somebody pushes corporate quotas as a way to promote gender equity, remember that such policies are largely self-serving measures that make their sponsors feel good but do little to help average women.
1. The author believes that the bills sponsored by Lewis and Haddad will __________.| A．help little to reduce gender bias. |
| B．pose a threat to the state government. |
| C．raise women's position in politics. |
| D．greatly broaden career options. |
| A．the harm from absolute board decision. |
| B．the importance of constitutional guarantees. |
| C．the pressure on women in global corporations. |
| D．the needlessness of government interventions. |
| A．the underestimation of elite women's role |
| B．the objection to female participation on boards. |
| C．the entry of unqualified candidates into the board. |
| D．the growing tension between labor and management. |
| A．Women's need in employment should be considered. |
| B．Feasibility should be a prime concern in policy making. |
| C．Everyone should try hard to promote social justice. |
| D．Major social issues should be the focus of the government. |
2 . This month, Germany’s transport minister, Alexander Dobrindt , proposed the first set of rules for autonomous vehicles(自主驾驶车辆）.They would define the driver’s role in such cars and govern how such cars perform in crashes where lives might be lost.
The proposal attempts to deal with what some call the “death valley” of autonomous vehicles: the grey area between semi-autonomous and fully driverless cars that could delay the driverless future.
Dobrindt wants three things: that a car always chooses property(财产）damage over personal injury; that it never distinguishes between humans based on age or race; and that if a human removes his or her hands from the driving wheel — to check email, say — the car’s maker is responsible if there is a crash.
“The change to the road traffic law will permit fully automatic driving,” says Dobrindt. It will put fully driverless cars on an equal legal footing to human drivers, he says.
Who is responsible for the operation of such vehicles is not clear among car makers, consumers and lawyers. “The liability(法律责任）issue is the biggest one of them all,” says Natasha Merat at the University of Leeds, UK.
An assumption behind UK insurance for driverless cars, introduced earlier this year, insists that a human “ be watchful and monitoring the road” at every moment.
But that is not what many people have in mind when thinking of driverless cars. “When you say ‘driverless cars”, people expect driverless cars.” Merat says “You know — no driver.”
Because of the confusion, Merat thinks some car makers will wait until vehicles can be fully automated without operation.
Driverless cars may end up being a form of public transport rather than vehicles you own, says Ryan Calo at Stanford University, California. That is happening in the UK and Singapore, where government-provided driverless vehicles are being launched.
That would go down poorly in the US, however. “The idea that the government would take over driverless cars and treat them as a public good would get absolutely nowhere here,” says Calo.
1. What does the phrase “death valley” in Paragraph 2 refer to?| A．A place where cars often break down. | B．A case where passing a law is impossible. |
| C．An area where no driving is permitted. | D．A situation where drivers’ role is not clear. |
| A．stop people from breaking traffic rules. | B．help promote fully automatic driving. |
| C．protect drivers of all ages and races. | D．prevent serious property damage. |
| A．It should get the attention of insurance companies. |
| B．It should be the main concern of law makers. |
| C．It should not cause deadly traffic accidents. |
| D．It should involve no human responsibility. |
| A．Singapore | B．the UK | C．the US | D．Germany |
3 . Thirty-two cases of illegal hunting or trading wild animals have been uncovered involving 33 suspects since a crackdown against illegal wildlife trade was launched on April 10.
Beijing police seized 74 wild animals grouped in China into the first-grade and second-grade state protected animals, including African grey parrots and cockatoos, as well as nearly 50 wild birds and 21 pangolin scales.
On April 16, police in the capital city’s Chaoyang district caught two suspects, who were respectively identified as Liu and Wang, for buying wild animals, and recovered more than 40 wild birds, including one cockatoo and one African grey parrot, at their homes, the statement said, adding the two suspects have been detained (拘留).
In another case, a 35-year-old man surnamed Hu was also sentenced to imprisonment in Daxing district after he was found selling wild animals through QQ, a popular instant messaging tool in the country. He was caught on April 14.
The bureau highlighted the importance of protecting the wildlife, noting Chinese laws and a new decision adopted by the nation’s top legislature (立法机关) have also shown the country’s determination against illegal trade of wild animals.
The Chinese Criminal Law clarifies that those illegally hunting, buying, selling or transporting wild animals on the state protection list, endangered animals or the wildlife-related products will face an imprisonment of more than 10 years and fines if their behaviors are identified as “extremely serious”.
On Feb 24, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, the country’s top legislative body, also passed the decision that clearly states all wildlife on the protection list of the existing Wild Animal Protect Law or other laws, and all wild animals, including those artificially bred and farmed, are not permitted to be hunted or traded.
With the strict crackdown campaign against illegal trade of wild animals on the go in Beijing, the whole nation is attaching great importance to wild life protection.
1. The author mentions the cases at the very beginning of the passage to ______ .| A．explain the new laws on wildlife protection |
| B．show the present situation of wildlife extinction |
| C．highlight the problem of illegal trade of wild animals |
| D．introduce Beijing’s campaign against illegal wildlife trade |
| A．The number of wild animals is decreasing sharply. |
| B．Hunting and trading wildlife has become a nationwide concern. |
| C．Effective actions have been taken to prevent wildlife from illegal trade. |
| D．The strong action to stop trading illegal wild animals has a long way to go. |
| A．serious actions of trading wild animals will face fierce punishment |
| B．people risk heavy fines but no imprisonment for trade of wildlife |
| C．the trade of wildlife-related products will receive no punishment |
| D．those who hunt illegally may face 10 years of imprisonment |
| A．Determined. | B．Hopeful. | C．Unconcerned. | D．Doubtful. |
4 . Communities across the world are starting to ban facial recognition technologies. The efforts are well intentioned, but banning facial recognition is the wrong way to fight against modern surveillance （监 视）.Generally, modern mass surveillance has three broad components: identification, correlation and discrimination.
Facial recognition is a technology that can be used to identify people without their consent. Once we are identified, the data about who we are and what we are doing can be correlated with other data. This might be movement data, which can be used to "follow” us as we move throughout our day. It can be purchasing data, Internet browsing data, or data about who we talk to via email or text. It might be data about our income, ethnicity, lifestyle, profession and interests. There is an entire industry of data brokers who make a living by selling our data without our consent.
It's not just that they know who we are; it's that they correlate what they know about us to create profiles about who we are and what our interests are. The whole purpose of this process is for companies to treat individuals differently. We are shown different ads on the Internet and receive different offers for credit cards. In the future, we might be treated differently when we walk into a store, just as we currently are when we visit websites.
It doesn't matter which technology is used to identify people. What's important is that we can be consistently identified over time. We might be completely anonymous （匿名的）in a system that uses unique cookies to track us as we browse the Internet, but the same process of correlation and discrimination still occurs.
Regulating this system means addressing all three steps of the process. A ban on facial recognition won't make any difference. The problem is that we are being identified without our knowledge or consent, and society needs rules about when that is permissible.
Similarly, we need rules about how our data can be combined with other data, and then bought and sold without our knowledge or consent. The data broker industry is almost entirely unregulated now. Reasonable laws would prevent the worst of their abuses.
Finally, we need better rules about when and how it is permissible for companies to discriminate. Discrimination based on protected characteristics like race and gender is already illegal, but those rules are ineffectual against the current technologies of surveillance and control. When people can be identified and their data correlated at a speed and scale previously unseen, we need new rules.
Today, facial recognition technologies are receiving the force of the tech backlash （抵制），but focusing on them misses the point. We need to have a serious conversation about all the technologies of identification, correlation and discrimination, and decide how much we want to be spied on and what sorts of influence we want them to have over our lives.
1. According to Para. 2, with facial recognition _______.| A．one’s lifestyle changes greatly |
| B．one's email content is disclosed |
| C．one's profiles are updated in time |
| D．one's personal information is released |
| A．discrimination based on new tech surveillance is illegal |
| B．different browsing data bring in different advertisements |
| C．using mobiles anonymously keeps us from being correlated |
| D．data brokers control the current technologies of surveillance |
| A．people's concern over their safety |
| B．the nature of the surveillance society |
| C．proper regulation of mass surveillance |
| D．the importance of identification technology |
| A．call for banning facial recognition technologies |
| B．advocate the urgent need for changes in related laws |
| C．inform readers of the disadvantages of facial recognition |
| D．evaluate three broad components in modem mass surveillance |
5 . Freedoms challenge in the Digital Age is a serious topic. We are facing today a strange new world and we are all wondering what we are going to do with it.
Some 2,500 years ago Greece discovered freedom. Before that there was no freedom. There were great civilizations, splendid empires, but no freedom anywhere. Egypt and Babylon were tyrannies, one very powerful man ruling over helpless masses In Greece, in Athens(雅典) a little city in a little country, there were no helpless masses.
And Athenians willingly obeyed the written laws which they themselves passed, and the unwritten, which must be obeyed if free men live together. They must show each other kindness and pity and the many qualities without which life would be very painful unless one chose to live alone in the desert. The Athenians never thought that a man was free if he could do what he wanted A man was free if he was self-controlled. To make yourself obey what you approved was freedom. They were saved from looking at their lives as their own private affair. Each one felt responsible for the welfare of Athens, not because it was forced on him from the outside, but because the city was his pride and his safety. The essential belief of the first free government in the world was liberty for all men who could control themselves and would take responsibility for the state.
But discovering freedom is not like discovering computers. It cannot be discovered once for all. If people do not prize it, and work for it, it will go. Constant watch is its price. Athens changed. It was a change that took place without being noticed though it was of the extreme importance a spiritual change which affected the whole state. It had been the Athenians pride and joy to give to their city That they could get material benefits from her never entered their minds. there had to be a complete change of attitude before they could took at the city as an employer who paid her citizens for doing her work. Now instead of men giving to the state, the state was to give to them. What the people wanted was a government which would provide a comfortable life for them; and with this as the primary object, ideas of freedom and self-reliance and responsibility were neglected to the point of disappearing: Athens was more and more looked on as a cooperative business possessed of great wealth in which all citizens had a right to share
Athens reached the point when the freedom she really wanted was freedom from responsibility
There could be only one result. If men insisted on being free from the burden of self-dependence and responsibility for the common good, they would cease to be free. Responsibility is the price every man must pay for freedom. It is to be had on no other terms. Athens, the Athens of Ancient Greece, refused responsibility; she reached the end of freedom and was never to have it again.
But "the excellent becomes the permanent, Aristotle said. Athens lost freedom forever, but freedom was not lost forever for the world. a great American, James Madison, referred to the capacity of mankind for self-government. No doubt he had not an idea that he was speaking Greek. Athens was not in the farthest background of his mind, but once man has a great and good idea, it is never completely lost. The Digital Age cannot destroy it. Somehow in this or that man s thought such an idea lives though unconsidered by the world of action. One can never be sure that it is not on the point of breaking out into action, only sure that it will do so sometimes
1. What does the underlined word "tyrannies" in Para2 refer to?| A．Countries where their people need help |
| B．Powerful states with higher civilization |
| C．Splendid empires where people enjoy freedom. |
| D．Government ruled with absolute power |
| A．The Athenians refused to take their responsibility. |
| B．The Athenians no longer took their pride in the city |
| C．The Athenians benefited spiritually from the government. |
| D．The Athenians viewed the government as a business to work for. |
| A．Athens would continue to be |
| B．Athens would cease to have freedom. |
| C．Freedom would come from responsibility. |
| D．Freedom would stop Athens from self-dependence |
| A．He is hopeful about freedom |
| B．He is cautious about self-government |
| C．He is doubtful about Greek civilization |
| D．He is critical of Greece’s loss of freedom |
| A．Freedom can be more popular in the digital age |
| B．Freedom may come to an end in the digital age |
| C．Freedom should have priority over responsibility |
| D．Freedom should be guaranteed by responsibility. |
6 . The purpose of the American court system is to protect the rights of the people. According to American law, if someone is accused of a crime, he or she is considered innocent until the court proves that the person is guilty. In other words, it is the responsibility of the court to prove that a person is guilty. It is not the responsibility of the person to prove that he or she is innocent.
In order to arrest a person, the police have to be reasonable sure that a crime has been committed. The police must give the suspect the reasons why they are arresting him and tell him his rights under the law. Then the police take the suspect to the police station to “book” him. “Booking means that the name of the person and the charges against him are formally listed at the police station.
The next step is for the suspect to go before a judge. The judge decides whether the suspect should be kept in jail or released. If the suspect has no previous criminal record and the judge feels that he will return to court rather than run away -- for example, because he owns a house and has a family -- he can go free. Otherwise, the suspect must put up bail（保释金）. At this time, too, the judge will appoint a court layer to defend the suspect if he can’t afford one.
The suspect returns to court a week or two later. A lawyer from the district attorney’s office presents a case against the suspect. This is called a hearing. The attorney may present evidence as well as witnesses. The judge at the hearing then decides whether there is enough reason to hold a trial. If the judge decides that there is sufficient evidence to call for a trial, he or she sets a date for the suspect to appear in court to formally plead guilty（认罪）or not guilty.
At the trial, a jury of 12 people listens to the evidence from both attorneys and hears the testimony of the witnesses. Then the jury goes into a private room to consider the evidence and decide whether the defendant is guilty of the crime. If the jury decides that the defendant is innocent, he goes free. However, if he is convicted, the judge sets a date for the defendant to appear in court again for sentencing. At this time, the judge tells the convicted（宣判有罪的）person what his punishment will be. The judge may sentence him to prison, order him to pay a fine, or place him on probation（缓刑）.
The American justice system is very complex and sometimes operates slowly. However, every step is designed to protect the rights of the people. These individual rights are the basis, or foundation, of the American government.
1. What is the main idea of the passage?| A．The American court system requires that a suspect prove that he or she is innocent. |
| B．The US court system is designed to protect the rights of the people. |
| C．Under the American court system, judge decides if a suspect is innocent or guilty. |
| D．The US court system is designed to help the police present a case against the suspect. |
| A．the suspect is free to choose a lawyer to defend him |
| B．the suspect does not have to go to trial because the judge has decided he is innocent |
| C．the suspect will be informed by mail whether he is innocent or not |
| D．the suspect does not have to wait in jail or pay money until he goes to trial |
| A．To pay for the judge and the trial. |
| B．To pay for a court lawyer to defend the suspect. |
| C．To ensure that the suspect will return to court. |
| D．To ensure that the suspect will appear in prison. |
| A．The American justice system sometimes operates slowly |
| B．The police can arrest a suspect without giving any reasons. |
| C．It is the responsibility of the suspect to prove he is innocent. |
| D．The jury considers the evidence in the court room. |
7 . Have you ever heard a rumor spread around by students at your school? Rumors, like fake news, can often misinform individuals and lead them to believe false information.
In an attempt to settle this problem, the country of Singapore has passed a bill that bans companies and individuals from publishing false information online.
This law, known as The Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill, has caused a public outcry (强烈的抗议), as the government has been given the power to remove content that it considers inaccurate or against the public’s interest.
Since Singapore’s citizens are part of different racial and religious groups, the government fears that rumors or fake news can increase tensions within an already small country.
With the new law coming into effect, Singapore’s government now has the authority to monitor news sites, social media platforms, and other databases of information to determine whether the content is falsified. The government can order for the removal of fake news, and publishers of this information can receive prison time and fines up to one million Singapore dollars!
Critics fear that the bill threatens their freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Since national issues and world news are generally discussed on online platforms, many are concerned that this new bill will prevent individuals from talking freely and having healthy conversations.
Several companies, including Google, Facebook, and Twitter, have offices situated in Singapore, meaning that the new law will affect their company operations. Social media companies in Singapore could face a decline in activity, as users may fear posting their opinions and being punished by the government.
Others are concerned that the law does not clearly state what a “false statement” is. Such an ambiguity might allow the government to misuse their power, even though the intention is to curtail the mow of false information and rumors throughout Singapore.
This law does give rise to several concerns related to freedom and privacy and it will be interesting to see what Singapore’s government will do to deal with this problem.
1. Why are some people against the bill?| A．They think the bill can’t get rid of fake news. |
| B．They belong to different racial and religious groups. |
| C．They think their freedom of speech may be harmed. |
| D．They don’t want to increase tensions in their country. |
| A．Punish publishers of fake news. |
| B．Monitor telephone conversations. |
| C．Prohibit certain people from going online. |
| D．Fine fake-news makers any amount of money. |
| A．Their users’ privacy may be disturbed. |
| B．Their income will increase very slowly. |
| C．Their illegal activities will come to light. |
| D．Their social media may become less active. |
| A．prove | B．accelerate |
| C．promote | D．decrease |
8 . This could be Micah Fitz, first spring without football practices. The 14-year-old has been playing since he was 3, but because he’s home-schooled, he can’t try out for the local team at Patriot High School in Prince William County, Virginia.
“I can’t play this half of the year and my friends are going to be playing five or six times a week,” he said. “They’re going to be getting better and stronger playing with kids that are good.”
Micah and his family---along with many other home-schooling families across Virginia---are hoping the Virginia General Assemble will approve a bill this year that would allow kids like him to try out for sports on public school athletic teams. The bill, called the “Tebow bill”, is named after football player Tim Tebow, who was home-schooled but was allowed to play on a high school team before going to the University of Florida, where he led his team to two national championships.
Many major statewide education organizations said the bill wouldn’t be fair to public school students. Ken Tilley, the executive director of the Virginia High School League, said the bill would violate two of the league’s most long-standing standards for qualification: enrollment (注册入学) and academic standing.
Home-school advocates argue that they are required by the law to document academic progress. But many opponents say students always have the option of attending public high school. That might be what Sydney Bowman, a 12-year-old from Luchetts, will do to keep wrestling, although she would prefer to continue to be taught at home. In her case, girls’ wrestling teams are rare enough that there aren’t many options other than public school.
But Micah’ mom, Terri Fits, a former public school teacher, said that although they support the local schools and love to cheer on the teams, they like the flexibility of home-schooling.
1. What kind of feeling is expressed in Paragraph 2?| A．Sympathy. | B．Disappointment. |
| C．Embarrassment. | D．Satisfaction. |
| A．home-schoolers will be able to compete in public school sport events |
| B．public high schools will accept home-schooled students |
| C．home-schoolers will have to reach higher academic standards |
| D．children will have the right to be taught at home |
| A．He doubted it. | B．He was against it. |
| C．He was curious about it. | D．He paid little attention to it. |
| A．give up team sports | B．stop taking part in wrestling |
| C．go to a public high school | D．report her academic progress |
9 . Judge Frank Caprio is a famous person in the city of Providence, Rhode Island. And, he is starting to get noticed around the world, too. He is an 80-year-old judge in the capital city of Rhode Island, the smallest state in the U. S.. One of his jobs is to take charge of traffic court. That involves talking to people who have gotten traffic tickets for going though red lights or parking illegally. They go to traffic court to question the tickets. Caprio hears what they have to say. Then, he decides whether or not the ticket is legal.
Caprio recently heard the case of a young man who was driving his mother’s car. He went through a light after it turned red. After he spoke with the high school student, Caprio decided to let him off with a warning----if he promised to go to college and graduate.
Another video from the Providence traffic court came out earlier this week. It showed a woman speaking with Judge Caprio about a parking ticket. She went to traffic court after getting a ticket for parking in an area that only permitted parking after 10 a. m. . The ticket was written at 9:59 a. m. . The woman said the clock in her car showed 10 a. m., so she thought it would be OK. After some conversation, the judge decided to dismiss the ticket.
But Caprio did tell her, “You violated the city laws.” He held up a large book of rules. He smiled and the woman laughed. He said: “Our parking enforcement officers are second to none in the country!” After talking with the court officer, he said “I think 9:59 is close enough. Matter is dismissed.”
The video was viewed over 1 million times in just two days. One person wrote of the video: “This is so cute. What a great judge. LOVE THIS.” Others wondered if the video was real, because it seemed so funny. But, there actually are judges out there like Frank Caprio. He is as real as they come.
1. What punishment did the young man receive?| A．None | B．Fine |
| C．Education | D．Blame |
| A．ignored | B．followed |
| C．understood | D．broke |
| A．It was funny | B．It was so cute |
| C．It was not real | D．It was quite true |
10 . Consumers who value their privacy (隐私) can limit what they post on Facebook and adjust settings on sites such as Instagram. But Internet service providers (ISPs) have the best advantage point on what consumers do online, and there’s much less you can do about it. After all, your ISP is the conduit (中转机构) for everything you read, view, or shop for while you’re accessing the web at home.
New rules governing the way ISPs can use consumers’ data were adopted in 2016 and scheduled to go into effect this December. But they were rejected by Congress this spring That leaves the future of broadband (宽带) privacy practices unsettled. Consumers say they want more, not less, regulation of broadband privacy. In a nationally representative survey of 1,008 Americans conducted in early May for the Consumer Reports National Research Center, 80 Percent of respondents told us that ISPs should need to get permission before sharing consumers’ data. Six out of 10 didn’t think ISPs should be allowed to sell or share this information at all. Eighty-five percent of respondents said the data rightfully belongs to them.
Under the recently defeated rules，broadband providers would have faced a new login requirement, forcing them to get permission before using data such as web browsing histories. Opponents of the rules said it was unfair to hold ISPs to stricter standards than Internet companies such as Amazon, Google, and Facebook, which are regulated more loosely.
Going forward, state laws could pick up some of the conflict. By the end of May, more than a dozen states had proposed some laws mentioning the issue. Privacy protection bills were also being discussed in Washington, D. C. But privacy experts don’t expect much from the bills. After all, this is the same Congress that voted to roll back the existing privacy protections.
1. What do the new rules focus on?| A．Keeping the Internet steady. |
| B．Settling broadband practices. |
| C．Forbidding ISPs to use consumers’ data. |
| D．Protecting Internet consumers’ privacy. |
| A．Regulations on ISPs using consumers’ data. |
| B．A survey of privacy conducted by Congress. |
| C．Consumers, opinions about broadband privacy. |
| D．The argument about who owns consumers’ data. |
| A．Broadband providers. | B．Internet companies. |
| C．Internet consumers. | D．Survey representatives. |
| A．The future of broadband privacy will be clear. |
| B．Internet companies rejected the rules together with ISPs. |
| C．Privacy experts have a negative attitude to the privacy protection bills. |
| D．Consumers will go on arguing with Congress about the Internet privacy. |
