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
2 . The local government killed more than 34,000 stray dogs (流浪狗) several months ago because those officials were afraid that the dogs would spread rabies (狂犬病).
This caused a debate across the country. Some people said that it was very cruel to dogs. There might be a better way to prevent the disease.
In the future, killing stray dogs might be seen as a crime. Last month, the Chinese government published a draft of animal rights laws. It says that a person who kills a stray dog without one good reason will be put in prison.
The draft also says that animal abuse and abandoning animals will be considered crimes under the criminal law.
The government published the draft so that the public could read it and discuss their thoughts. People have different reactions. Some think the law is good. They say other countries like Britain and Japan have similar laws. They say we will do better at protecting animals if there is one. But others say it’s not crucial to fight animal abuse with a new law. Criticism and fines can do the job.
Some people also say that the draft doesn’t deal with the biggest issues facing the country’s development. The country should make progress to give all people equal rights, they say, before turning attention to animals.
Another part of the draft is causing discussion. It says that people should not force animals to do something dangerous, like jumping through a ring of fire. But many people enjoy watching this kind of performance at the circus, especially kids. They say that if the animal does it properly, it will not get hurt.
1. Why did the local government kill many dogs?| A．The dogs were dirty. | B．Those officials wanted to prevent rabies. |
| C．The dogs were homeless. | D．Those officials wanted to eat the dogs. |
| A．Killing a dog with rabies. | B．Beating an animal for fun. |
| C．Abandoning a blind pet dog. | D．Forcing a cat to jump through a ring of fire. |
| A．All people agree with the law. |
| B．Criticism and fines can protect animals. |
| C．Protecting animals is the biggest issue in China. |
| D．People have different opinions on the law. |
| A．People can’t kill stray dogs any longer. |
| B．The country won’t have human right problems. |
| C．Kids may not be able to watch animals’ performances in a circus. |
| D．Animals will not be killed. |
3 . Smoking in your own home in Thailand may now be considered a crime, if the smoke is considered harmful to other people in the house.
The new law, Family Protection and Development Promotion Act, aiming at controlling smoking at home which might be hazardous for others’ health living under the same roof, was initiated by the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security and was announced in the Royal Gazette on May 22, 2019. It came into force on August 20.
According to the centre for research and knowledge management for tobacco control, at the Faculty of Medical Science of Mahidol University, there are about 4.9 million households where one or more family members smoke. An average of 10.3 million people have unwittingly (不知不觉地) become passive smokers because they’ve been breathing smoke at home. Scientific studies show that passive smokers are at greater risk of being affected by cancer. Of 75 child patients from houses where smoking is practiced, 76% of them were found to have nicotine traces in their urine (尿液), with 43% of them having nicotine content exceeding (超过) permissible levels.
Smoking at home also “may lead to physical or emotional violence” because of aggressiveness when there is a lack of smoking, and might as well ruin relationships between smokers and non-smoker family members.
According to the new law, anyone who thinks they are affected by domestic smoking can report to government departments concerned so that officials will be sent to investigate and take legal action against the smokers. Once convicted (证明有罪的), the court may order a person to receive treatment to quit smoking in an attempt to protect the person’s family.
1. According to the new law, .| A．anybody must report to the officials once they are affected |
| B．officials will take legal action against all the people concerned |
| C．smoking in one’s own home in Thailand may now be considered a crime |
| D．the court may order a smoker to stop smoking to protect all non-smokers |
| A．Risky. | B．Beneficial. |
| C．Influential. | D．Dangerous. |
| A．By listing figures. |
| B．By giving examples. |
| C．By comparing the differences. |
| D．By explaining the reasons. |
| A．smoking anywhere in Thailand is considered a crime |
| B．passive smokers are more likely to have lung cancer |
| C．76% of the children in Thailand have nicotine traces in their urine |
| D．smoking at home may hurt other family members both physically and emotionally |
4 . “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 |
Besides such ethical concerns, the legal situations the autonomous vehicle industry is likely to be confronted with have
You can’t walk down the street without passing so-called “smart-phone zombies (僵尸).” They are too
Recently the city of Honolulu, Hawaii,
Honolulu is the first major U. S. city to ban (禁止) what is called “distracted walking”. It comes after a study found there had been more than 11,000
However, the law does permit
7 . The local government killed more than 34,000 stray dogs (流浪狗) several months ago because those officials were afraid that the dogs would spread rabies (狂犬病).
This caused a debate across the country. Some people said that it was very cruel to kill dogs. There might be a better way to prevent the disease.
In the future, killing stray dogs might be seen as a crime. The Chinese government published a draft of animal rights law. It says that a person who kills a stray dog without good reason will be put in prison.
The draft also says that animal abuse and abandoning animals will be considered crimes under the criminal law.
The government published the draft so that the public could read it and discuss their thoughts. People share different opinions. Some think the law is good. They say other countries like Britain and Japan have similar laws. They say we will do better at protecting animals if there is one. But others say it’s not necessary to fight animal abuse with a new law. Criticisms and fines can do the job.
Some people also say that the draft doesn’t deal with the biggest issues facing the country’s development. The country should make progress to give all people equal rights, they say, before turning attention to animals.
Another part of the draft is causing discussion. It says that people should not force animals to do something dangerous, like jumping through a ring of fire. But many people enjoy watching this kind of performance at the circus, especially kids. They say that if the animal does it properly, it will not get hurt.
1. Which of the following is acceptable according to the draft of animal rights law?| A．Killing a dog with rabies. |
| B．Beating an animal for fun. |
| C．Abandoning a blind pet dog. |
| D．Forcing a cat to jump through a ring of fire. |
| A．all people agree with the law |
| B．criticisms and fines can protect animals |
| C．protecting animals is the biggest issue in China |
| D．people have different opinions towards the law |
| A．people can’t kill stray dogs any longer |
| B．the country won’t have human right problems |
| C．kids may not be able to watch animals’ performances in a circus |
| D．animals will not be killed |
8 . In China, 2020 was bid farewell with a series of fireworks and the scratching off of 200 million metric tons of plastic straws from the nation’s pollution stocks.
The ban comes into effect first with two items, plastic straws and single-use shopping bags, with other single-use plastics to follow. China is one of fewer than 10 nations to ban plastic straws completely.
The ban was announced in the Party's new Five-Year Plan in January 2021, and aims to reduce plastic pollution while moving to biodegradable alternatives, starting with plastic straws.
But there is something unique that makes a plastic straw ban in China have more effect than other countries, and it isn't the fact that it is the most populous nation. It’s that paper and polylactic acid compound straws will replace plastic ones in the people’s favorite drink — tapioca pearl tea, also known as milk or bubble tea.
Chinese consumers love milk tea. These treats, often taking the place of the West‘s morning coffee, are drunk through plastic straws larger and thicker than those we would recognize from a McDonald‘s as they must be able to adapt to the movement of the “bubbles” of tapioca pudding.
Milk tea chains like Nayuki in Shanghai have already been using paper straws for most of the year ahead of the first stage of the plastic ban scheduled to start in 2021. One Chinese news agency reports that while prices for biodegradable alternatives to straws and bags are more expensive, the ban has seen the market share for bio-plastics increase to an expected $7.3 billion in 2025, and a further doubling to $ 13.9 billion by 2030, suggesting the cost will rapidly decrease as more companies enter the market with new technologies.
1. What do we know about the ban?| A．It aims to improve plastic straws and single-use shopping bags. |
| B．It was put forward in the Party's last Five-Year Plan. |
| C．It begins with plastic straws and single-use shopping bags. |
| D．It will solve plastic pollution completely. |
| A．China has the largest population in the world. |
| B．Chinese people prefer plastic straws. |
| C．A large quantity of plastic straws are being used in Chinese people's favorite drink. |
| D．Milk tea will no longer be loved by Chinese consumers. |
| A．It will be worrying. | B．It will be promising. |
| C．It will be hopeless. | D．It will be uncertain. |
| A．Entertainment. | B．Health. | C．Education. | D．Environment. |
9 . Owls(猫头鹰)can be found in many parts of the world. And today, one kind of owl, the barred owl, is causing a problem in forests of the northwestern United States. Barred owls are a large species native to eastern North America, but they began moving west at the start of the 20th century. In parts of the Pacific Northwest, barred owls are now causing a drop in the population of a kind of smaller and less aggressive(侵略性的) bird: the northern spotted owls. The U.S. Geological Survey is doing something unusual to protect spotted owls: killing barred owls. As a member of the department, David Wiens has mixed feelings about the program. “It’s a little unpleasant, I think, to go out killing owls,” he says. “But we knew that barred owls were really stronger than spotted owls and their numbers were growing too fast, so it makes sense to do that.”
It is a controversial( 有争议的) program. “A decision not to kill the barred owl is a decision to make the spotted owl disappear,” says Bob Sallinger, a director at the nonprofit Audubon Society in Portland, Oregon. However, Marc Bekoff, a professor of ecology(生态学 ) and biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, strongly disagrees with the experiment and says humans should find another way to help spotted owls.
If reducing the barred owl population improves the number of spotted owls, the U.S. Geological Survey may consider killing more barred owls as part of a longer-term effort. Enough success has been noted for the experiment to be extended to August of 2021.
1. Why are barred owls being killed ?| A．They are breaking the laws of nature. |
| B．They are killing each other to survive. |
| C．They are destroying large areas of forests. |
| D．They are putting the spotted owls in danger. |
| A．Doubtful. | B．Uncaring. | C．Supportive. | D．Negative. |
| A．New Ways to Help Forests |
| B．How to Keep Ecological Balance |
| C．Killing One Species to Save Another |
| D．Time to Protect Animals |
10 . Hundreds of new drivers have been given bans (禁令) for using their mobile phones at the wheel, as part of stricter new laws introduced. In March, the punishment for driving while on the phone was doubled to six points — meaning drivers with less than two years’ experience faced a ban.
New laws meant the punishment for being caught on a mobile phone at the wheel was increased to six points. The new rules were introduced in England, Scotland and Wales. Drivers who get six points within two years of passing their test will lose their licence, creating a one-strike rule for mobile phone users. To get back behind the wheel, new drivers have to retake both the theory and practical parts of the driving test.
Mr Williams in the RAC said, “These people have spent hours and hours and hundreds of pounds learning to drive to gain their personal freedom only to throw it all away through this foolish behaviour. The only comfort is that they won’t be drawn into some terrible crashes caused by the distraction (使人分心的事物) of a hand-held mobile phone.”
When the new laws were introduced, Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said they would act as a strong warning to mobile phone users. However, the numbers suggested a total of 15,752 drivers received the punishment of six points for using a mobile phone between March and August. This is an increase from 15, 237 drivers in the same period of last year.
National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead on roads Policing, Chief Constable Anthony Bangham, said the police took the offence (违法行为) seriously. “This is not a small offence and is never a risk worth taking because a moment’s distraction behind the wheel can change lives forever.” “Our message is simple — don’t do it,” he added.
1. What can we infer from Paragraph1?| A．The new laws have not been passed. |
| B．The new laws are not strict enough. |
| C．Drivers with less than two years’ experience won’t be affected. |
| D．Punishment for driving while phoning used to be three points. |
| A．He will be fined a lot. |
| B．He must learn the new rules. |
| C．He will lose his driving licence. |
| D．He will be given a warning. |
| A．traffic accidents were cut down |
| B．there were still many drivers who broke them |
| C．drivers thought the laws were unfair to them |
| D．fewer people broke them compared |
| A．The police didn’t take the new rules seriously. |
| B．The roads policy should be improved for safety. |
| C．A moment of carelessness may cause big accidents. |
| D．The laws need to be improved a lot and retested. |
