1 . 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. |
2 . “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 |
3 . 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 |
4 . 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 |
