1 . 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. |
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 |
China’s top legislature (立法机构) passed the Yellow River Protection Law on Sunday. Due
The Yellow River, the second
The law
The Yellow River basin is home
