1 . You wouldn’t steal a car. You would never rob a bank or pick someone’s pocket. But you may be another kind of thief.
If you have ever bought a disc for 15 yuan or less, then you have helped to rob artists or musicians of their intellectual properly rights (知识产权).
Last Thursday was World Intellectual Property Day. Activities to tell people about intellectual property rights were held around the country.
Intellectual property includes inventions, literary (文学的) and artistic works, names, and pictures. They are of little value if they are not read, seen and used.
While the cost of copying discs is very small, authors, singers and actors have to spend a lot of money and time making a new product. That’s why they have the right to make money from their work.
So buying pirated (盗版的) music of Jay Chou and Jolin Tsai is like stealing from them, paying them no respect for their hard work.
If Jay Chou cannot make money from his work, he may not make anything else. But those who make pirated goods are becoming rich without doing any hard work.
The authors should ask for a fair price for their work. Earlier this year there was much talk about how much KTV clubs should pay the music companies for using their songs.
The copyright fee also should be fair to the users. That’s good for the music’s popularity and society as well.
1. What is the author’s attitude towards protecting intellectual property rights?| A．He is for it. | B．He is against it. |
| C．He doesn’t care about it. | D．The article doesn’t tell us. |
| A．Inventions. | B．Literary and artistic works. |
| C．Names and pictures. | D．Pirated music. |
| A．Authors should ask for a high price for their work. |
| B．The copyright fee should be fair to users. |
| C．Authors, singers and actors have no right to make money from their work. |
| D．Buying pirated music by Jay Chou is very good. |
| A．Rob a Bank | B．Copyright Fees |
| C．Say No to pirated Music | D．World Intellectual Property Day |
2 . The first-ever fine for space junk was issued in early October in a case of off-planet environmental enforcement (执法). The television company, Dish Network, was hit with a $125,000 fine by the United States government for failing to remove a satellite in orbit that would have risked a collision (撞击) with other space equipment, a safety concern that will only grow with time as off-planet activities increase.
According to NASA, debris (碎片) orbiting in space can travel up to 15 kilometres per second, which is nearly 10 times faster than the velocity (速度) of a bullet. A huge amount of damage can be caused by something just a few centimetres in size, meaning that every effort must be taken to keep space as clear as possible. Collisions that take place in space have an effect back on Earth. Damaged satellites impact our ability to use the Internet and navigation (导航), leaving increasingly global critical infrastructure in an unstable state.
One solution for this may be to send autonomous space vehicles into orbit, which can then catch and effectively de-orbit space junk. By utilizing tools such as robotic arms, or nets, this approach will require very precise track and fine cooperation in order to be successful. Such measures are yet to catch up with the increase in space activity and pollution currently occurring. Therefore, fines and regulatory enforcement may presently be the only realistic method to hold organizations accountable.
The Dish Network satellite, fined $125,000 by the Federal Communications Commission, failed to de-orbit as a lack of fuel stopped the satellite from fully decommissioning (退役) a safe distance from Earth, falling short by around 75 miles (120 kilometres). It is hoped that significant fines like these will serve as a warning for companies, forcing them to make sure the safe decommissioning of their space operations.
1. Why was Dish Network fined?| A．It left space junk in orbit. | B．It increased off-planet activities. |
| C．It made collisions among space equipment. | D．It sent too much space equipment to space. |
| A．Space junk may turn into bullets. | B．Debris fragments are too tiny to track. |
| C．Debris may cause great damage in space. | D．A bad space environment will destroy the Earth. |
| A．The harm of space junk. | B．Ways to remove space junk. |
| C．Types of autonomous space vehicles. | D．Approaches to stopping satellites. |
| A．Unconcerned. | B．Doubtful. | C．Negative. | D．Approving. |
1. Which of the following will have the strictest ban on smoking according to the text?
| A．Canada. | B．Finland. | C．Hong Kong. |
| A．It can’t ban smoking forever. |
| B．It wants to ban smoking now. |
| C．It wants to ban smoking thoroughly. |
| A．Restaurants. | B．Cars. | C．Shopping malls. |
| A．Smoking and Cancer | B．Smoking in Hong Kong | C．Anti-smoking Laws |
1. Who does the organization of Law Society represent?
| A．Native people. | B．Lawyers in Britain. |
| C．Non-humans. | D．Children in Wales. |
| A．They focus on better ways to tackle climate change. |
| B．They forbid other creatures to use trees for food or shelter. |
| C．They recognize the legal rights of the whole natural system. |
| D．They protect things humans find interesting like trees and pets. |
| A．Defending native cultures by law. |
| B．Using laws to protect nature. |
| C．Fighting the loss of biodiversity. |
| D．Using technology to protect the environment. |
5 . Utah’s governor, Spencer Cox, recently signed two bills into law that strictly limit children’s use of social media platforms. Under the law, which takes effect next year, social media companies have to check the ages of all users in the state, and children under age 18 have to get agreement from their parents to have accounts. Parents will also be able to use their kids’ accounts, apps won’t be allowed to show children ads, and accounts for kids won’t be able to be used between 10:30 pm and 6:30 am without parental agreement.
While some people argue age limitation allows tech companies to collect even more data about users, let’s be real: These companies already have much private information about us. To solve this problem, we need a separate data privacy law. But until that happens, this concern shouldn’t stop us from protecting kids.
One of the key parts of the law is allowing parents to use their kids’ accounts. By doing this, the law begins to help address one of the biggest dangers kids face online: harmful content.
One huge challenge the law helps parents get over is the amount of time kids are spending on social media. A 2022 survey found that, on average, children aged 8 to 12 spend 5 hours and 33 minutes per day on social media while those aged 13 to 18 spend 8 hours and 39 minutes daily. It’s warned that lack of sleep is connected with serious harm to children — everything from injuries to depression (抑郁), fatness and diabetes. So, parents need to have a way to ensure their kids aren’t up on social media platforms all night.
Considering the experiences many kids are having on social media, this law will help Utah’s parents protect their kids. Parents in other states need the same support. Now, it’s time for the government to step up and ensure children throughout the country have the same protection as Utah’s kids.
1. Which is allowed according to the new bill?| A．Ads can be put on to children. |
| B．Children can use social media freely. |
| C．Parents can check their kids’ accounts. |
| D．Related companies protect users’ accounts. |
| A．Because children’s right to surf the Internet is limited. |
| B．Because more personal information may be given away. |
| C．Because it prevents the data privacy law from taking effect. |
| D．Because children may become too dependent on the Internet. |
| A．Higher learning efficiency. |
| B．Better personal eating habits. |
| C．Easier access to healthy media. |
| D．Improved physical and mental health. |
| A．Supportive. | B．Doubtful. | C．Flexible. | D．Negative. |
6 . Beijing No 4 Intermediate People’s Court said on Thursday that it concluded 77 cases of smuggling (走私) precious animal products from the beginning of 2015 to June this year, with about 40 percent of defendants (被告) given prison terms of three or more years. The products were found to be frequently made of body parts of some endangered wild animals such as elephants, turtles, bears and wolves, Wang Jing, vice-president of the court, told a news conference.
”Most of the defendants were migrant workers, students and tourists coming back to China,“ Wang said. ”Some aimed to sell the products for profits or send to friends and family members as gifts, while they wanted to use them to help with diseases.“
Wang explained that some of the defendants received heavier penalties (刑罚), such as a long-term imprisonment and a high fine, because the animal parts they smuggled were from animals listed on the national key protection of wildlife or related to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES). For example, a defendant surnamed Yan was sentenced to 10 years in prison, along with 200,000 yuan($27,968)in fines, for smuggling 393 fish bladder products, the court said. Yan was caught while arriving at the Beijing Capital International Airport from Mexico on March 21, 2018, and the suspected products were discovered by the customs staff members in Yan’s luggage, it said. The products were later identified as being made of drum fish in Gulf of California, and the fish is listed on the CITES, it said, adding that the products were worth of about 2.51 million yuan($351,000).
To effectively fight the crime, the court has issued a guideline on the smuggling of precious animal products to help judges accurately apply laws and unify (统一) the standards of relevant case hearings.
On Thursday, the court also disclosed four other smuggling cases, showing its determination and effort to protect precious animals by rule of law.
1. What did Wang Jing tell the news conference in paragraph 1?| A．Who the products would be sold to. | B．Where the wild animals came from. |
| C．What the products were made of. | D．How the wild animals were caught. |
| A．Five years. | B．Seven years. | C．Ten years. | D．Twelve years. |
| A．Have some doubt about. | B．Feel a little upset about. |
| C．Try to discover facts about. | D．Give people information about. |
| A．Beijing court handles 77 cases of smuggling animal products |
| B．Beijing court makes an effort to recognize wild animals products |
| C．Beijing court helps judges apply laws about smuggling animal products |
| D．Beijing court issues guideline on smuggling of precious animal products |
7 . 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. |
8 . People who cross the street while looking at their phones may be fined in the city of Xiamen, Fujian province, as traffic police officers are enforcing (施行) a local regulation that was put into effect on August 1st.
A pedestrian who was crossing the street on Tuesday while looking at their phone was given a warning, becoming the city’s first to receive a reprimand (训斥) for the behavior.
The Traffic Safety Regulation on Zebra Lines in Xiamen Special Economic Zone, made into a law on Tuesday, states pedestrians should not browse their electronic devices or engage in other activities that may end anger traffic safety while using crossing lanes. Those who violate this rule and delay or stop the progress of the normal passage of vehicles are supposed to be given a warning or a fine of 50 yuan($7).
The regulation was made in response to motions by legislators (立法委员) to the Xiamen people’s congress. “Through putting uncivilized behavior right via legal means, we hope to create a better environment for drivers and pedestrians to better understand and interact with each other,” said Wu Tao, an official at the local congress.
Su Guoqiang, a deputy to the congress among those who raised the motion, said more than 20 percent of traffic accidents in Xiamen happened on crosswalks. “We hope to use the punishment of the ‘small’ act of browsing phones as something to prevent people from doing such a thing,” he told China Central Television.
Peng Chong, a traffic police officer in Xiamen, told CCTV for the time being they will mostly educate and warn violators and make everyone involved in traffic aware of the rules.
1. What does the underlined word “motions” in paragraph 4 mean?| A．Formal invitations. | B．Formal features. |
| C．Formal proposals. | D．Formal apologies. |
| A．The concrete contents of the punishment. |
| B．The reason why the motion was put forward. |
| C．The reason why people browse phones on crosswalks. |
| D．The factors that have an influence on traffic on streets. |
| A．Mostly by giving them a ticket. | B．Mostly by giving them a warning. |
| C．Mostly by making them recite the law. | D．Mostly by making them catch another violator. |
| A．Pedestrians on crosswalk warned not to end anger traffic safety in Xiamen |
| B．Xiamen expects drivers and pedestrians to better understand each other |
| C．20 percent of traffic accidents in Xiamen happen on crosswalks |
| D．Xiamen regulation on crosswalk behavior enters force |
After 1028 days of detention (拘押)，Meng Wanzhou, the CFO (首席财务官) of Huawei Technology Company, finally returned to China.
On Dec 1, 2018, Meng was detained by the Canadian police at the request of the US, accused of violating US sanctions (制裁) against Iran.
According to a statement issued by one of the lawyers
The news of Meng’s release has aroused a strong reaction among Chinese internet
“As an ordinary Chinese citizen who
10 . 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. |
