1 . California will be the first state to ban the sale and manufacture of new fur products.
California’s fur law was one of several bills designed to prevent cruelty to animals. “California is a leader when it comes to animal protection and today that leadership includes banning the sale of fur, ” said Governor Newsom in a news report. “
Many retailers are also ending fur sales. In mid-October, Macy’s (American’s department store) announced it will stop fur from all its stores by the end of 2020. The stores will also close all fur vaults and salons. Other fashion brands such as Prada, Gucci, Michael Kors and Burberry have taken similar steps in recent years.
| A．But we are doing more than that. |
| B．California is taking the lead in protecting animals. |
| C．Similar laws have been carried out globally already. |
| D．And that in turn will leave many people unemployed. |
| E．Two other California cities had already banned fur sales. |
| F．Not surprisingly, the ban is welcomed by animal rights activists. |
| G．The ban applies to clothing, shoes, handbags and other things that contain fur. |
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 |
This week, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed a bill banning the use of elephants, tigers and other wild animals in circus, acts,
“These animals belong in their natural habitats, not in performances
4 . Some places in the world have strange laws. It’s important for you to know about them before going there.
Whoever likes to chew gum(口香糖) may have to leave Singapore. The government really wants to keep the city clean and will fine you for chewing gum.
Before you leave for the United Arab Emirates you’d better make sure you aren’t visiting during Ramadan(斋月). During that time you aren’t allowed to eat or drink in public. Tourists have been fined up to $275 for drinking in public.
Lovers spend so much time kissing each other goodbye at train stations that trains often start late. This law—no kissing your lover goodbye at train stations – is rather old, and isn’t in use today in France.
In Thailand it’s against the law to drive a car or motorcycle without a shirt on, no matter how hot it is. Punishments are different in different areas and can include warnings and tickets costing about $10. No joke ---the local police will stop you.
Studies in Denmark have shown that cars with their headlights on are more noticeable by other drivers than those with their headlights off. Drivers there are required to leave their headlights on even during the day, or they may face a fine up to $100.
Do you often buy things using coins? Don’t do it in Canada. The Currency Law of 1985 doesn’t allow using only coins to buy things. Even the use of the dollar-coin is limited (受限制的). The shop owner has the right to choose whether to take your coins or not.
Make sure you know about these laws before your next trip. Better safe than sorry.
1. What is mainly talked about in the text?| A．How to make your trip around the world safe. |
| B．Why there are strange laws in the world. |
| C．Interesting places you can go to around the world. |
| D．Some strange laws you should know about for your trip. |
| A．you should wear your shirt even though it’s hot |
| B．the police will play a joke on you |
| C．the police will give you tickets costing about $10 |
| D．you should always keep your headlights on |
| A．Kissing goodbye at train stations isn’t allowed in France today. |
| B．The Singaporean government cares a lot about its environment. |
| C．Tourists in the United Arab Emirates shouldn’t eat in public. |
| D．You can turn your headlights off in daytime in Denmark. |
5 . 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. |
6 . Traveling by subway can sometimes be quite an adventure, especially during rush hour. There are the times when you have to avoid cups of coffee that could spill (溅) on you. The smells of some passengers’ food are very strong, too. According to the Beijing subway passenger regulations, which went into effect on May 15th, passengers except babies and the sick are no longer allowed to eat or drink on the subway. Violators (违反者) who do not stop after being asked to will be asked to get off. The violation will also be recorded in the violators’ credit record.
Some support the rule. The reason is that the smell of food and drink can annoy other passengers. “The smell of food fills the carriage, causing people discomfort, especially in the hot summer, Besides, eating on the subway produces rubbish. And on subway trains, people often spill their drinks,” said Zheng Yiou, 17, a student from Hefei.
However, others question this rule. “Some citizens live so far from their work places that they have limited time to have breakfast before they go to work. Eating while they travel saves them time and decreases the chance that they will be late for work,” He Songlin, a 17-year-old student from Chengdu said, “And some people, like those with low- blood sugar levels, get sick if they can’t eat when they must.”
Other Chinese cities like Nanjing and Chengdu have similar regulations. Some foreign cities also ban eating and drinking on the subway. For example, eating and drinking have long been banned on the subway in Washington DC. Singapore fines people who eat or drink on the subway up to 500 Singapore dollars, which is RMB 2,417 yuan.
Chen Yanyan, a professor from Beijing University of Technology, believed we should consider the need of some people to eat or drink on the subway. “Commuters (上班族) and travelers are sometimes too busy to eat. Maybe we could learn from Tokyo, where there are many subway stations equipped with services, allowing passengers to eat and drink,” she said.
1. In which city was subway passenger regulations carried out on May 15th?| A．Chengdu. | B．Nanjing. |
| C．Washington DC. | D．Beijing. |
| A．Eating on the subway. | B．Drinking on the subway. |
| C．Being fined up to 2417 yuan. | D．Being asked to get off the train. |
| A．Worried. | B．Sympathetic. |
| C．Doubtful. | D．Uninterested |
| A．Food and Drink Banned on Subway. |
| B．The Adventure of Subway Traveling |
| C．Ways to Eat and Drink on Subway. |
| D．The Services on Subway Stations |
7 . The Supreme Court’s decisions on physician-assisted suicide carry important implications for how medicine seeds to relieve dying patients of pain and suffering.
Although it ruled that there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide, the Court in effect supported the medical principle of “double effects”, a centuries-old moral principle holding that an action having two effects----a good one that is intended and a harmful one that is foreseen---is permissible if the actor intends only the good effect.
Doctors have used that principle in recent years to justify using high doses of morphine to control terminally ill patients’ pain, even though increasing dosages will eventually kill the patient.
Nancy Dubler, director of Montefiore Medical Center, contends that the principle will shield doctors who "until now have very, very strongly insisted that they could not give patients sufficient medication to control their pain if that might hasten death."
George Annas, chair of the health law department at Boston University, maintains that, as long as a doctor prescribes a drug for a legitimate medical purpose, the doctor has done nothing illegal even if the patient uses the drug to hasten death. "It's like surgery, " he says. “We don't call those deaths homicides because the doctors didn't intend to kill their patients, although they risked their death. If you're a physician, you can risk your patient's suicide as long as you don't intend their suicide."
On another level, many in the medical community acknowledge that the assisted-suicide debate has been fueled in part by the despair of patients for whom modern medicine has prolonged the physical agony of dying.
Just three weeks before the Court's ruling on physician-assisted suicide, the National Academy of Science (NAS) released a two-volume report, Approaching Death: Improving Care at the End of Life. It identifies the undertreatment of pain and the aggressive use of "ineffectual and forced medical procedures that may prolong and even dishonor the period of dying" as the twin problems of end-of-life care.
The profession is taking steps to require young doctors to train in hospices, to test knowledge of aggressive pain management therapies, to develop a Medicare billing code for hospital-based care, and to develop new standards for assessing and treating pain at the end of life.
Annas says lawyers can play a key role in insisting that these well-meaning medical initiatives translate into better care. “Large numbers of physicians seem unconcerned with the pain their patients are needlessly and predictably suffering,” to the extent that it constitutes “systematic patient abuse.” He says medical licensing boards “must make it clear ... that painful deaths are presumptively ones that are incompetently managed and should result in license suspension.”
1. From the first three paragraphs, we learn that_____________| A．doctors used to increase drug dosages to control their patients' pain. |
| B．it is still illegal for doctors to help the dying end their lives. |
| C．the Supreme Court strongly opposes physician-assisted suicide. |
| D．patients have no constitutional right to commit suicide. |
| A．Doctors will be held guilty if they risk their patients' death. |
| B．Modern medicine has assisted terminally ill patients in painless recovery. |
| C．The Court ruled that high-dosage pain-relieving medication can be prescribed. |
| D．A doctor's medication is no longer justified by his intentions. |
| A．Bold. | B．Harmful. | C．Careless. | D．Desperate. |
| A．manage their patients incompetently |
| B．give patients more medicine than needed |
| C．reduce drug dosages for their patients |
| D．prolong the needless suffering of the patients |
8 . In a historic moment on June 26, the US Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a legal right across all 50 states. The Supreme Court justices ruled states cannot deny gay men and women the same marriage rights. The decision means the 13 states with bans on same-sex marriage are no longer able to enforce them.
Same-sex couples “ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law”. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion: “The Constitution grants them that right.”
The decision came after decades of litigation（诉讼） and activism. It set off celebrations across the US. In affected states including Georgia, Michigan, Ohio and Texas, same-sex couples rushed to wed, while officials in Mississippi and Louisiana said marriages had to wait until procedural issues were addressed, reported the BBC.
According to “The New York Times”, the ruling came against the backdrop of fast-moving changes in public opinion in the US, with polls indicating that most Americans now approve of same-sex marriage.
US President Barack Obama welcomed the ruling, saying it “affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts.” “Today,” he said in a press release, “we can say, in no uncertain terms, that we have made our union a little more perfect.”
Another win.
This was the second time the Supreme Court took up same-sex marriage, according to an article in “Business Insider”. The first time, in June 2013, the court made a decision that allowed the US federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in states where they were already legal.
But at that time, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the broader question about gay marriage: Is there a constitutional（宪法的） right to same-sex marriage? The June 26 ruling gave a positive answer to that question.
Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that the Constitution should evolve with societal changes.
“The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times,” he wrote. “The generations that wrote and ratified the “Bill of Rights” and the “Fourteenth Amendment（修正案）” did not exactly know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they hoped the future generations can protect the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”
The Fourteenth Amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the law. In the June 26 ruling, the Supreme Court declared that the equal protection clause of the amendment requires marriage rights be extended to same-sex couples, too.
1. According to the passage, which of the following is true?| A．The majority of Americans now object to same-sex marriage. |
| B．Gay men and women did not care about the ruling. |
| C．All the US states did not ban same-sex marriage before the ruling. |
| D．The US president believes the country will be less perfect after the ruling. |
| A．before June 26, most Americans have doubt about same-sex marriage. |
| B．this is the first time the Americans have got the same-sex marriage right. |
| C．thanks to the amendment, all the Same-sex couples can get married immediately. |
| D．Americans struggled for decades to win the same-sex right. |
| A．The author thinks that it is unfair for same-sex marriage not to have the marriage right. |
| B．The author wants to show that it is difficult for same-sex marriage couple to get the right. |
| C．The author thinks that in our own times we can not see the justice. |
| D．The author shows his dissatisfaction with the delayed approval of the legal same-sex marriage. |
