1 . Las Vegas city in Nevada is built in a desert. The city may be known to the world for its partying. But officials have found that there are 21 square kilometers of useless grass. The grass is never laid on, played on or even stepped on. The grass is only there to look nice.
Now, the city is asking the Nevada state legislature (立法机构) to ban useless grass. It is trying to become the first place in America to ban that kind of grass often seen between streets, in housing developments and in office parks.
Useless grass nearly makes up 40% of all the grass in Las Vegas and it needs lots of water to survive. Grass needs four times more water than dry climate plants. By tearing out the grass, the city could reduce yearly water usage by 15%.
In 2003, the Southern Nevada Water Authority banned developers from planting grass in front of new homes. It also offered homeowners $30 for each square meter of grass they tear out. But fewer people are now using the program. Water usage has increased here by 9% since 2019. And last year, Las Vegas set a record of 240 days without major rainfall. The Colorado River provides much of Nevada’s drinking water. The river could lose more water as climate change affects it.
Water officials in other dry cities said water usage needs to be reduced. But they fear the reaction to reforms like the ones in Las Vegas if their communities do not accept them. Cynthia Campbell is the water resources adviser for the city of Phoenix in Arizona. “The city restrictions (限制) may get too hard for some residents (居民). They’ll say that is the point of no return for them,” Campbell said. “For some people, it’s a pool. For some people, it’s grass.”
1. Why does Las Vegas city try to ban useless grass?| A．To protect the local people. | B．To beautify the city. |
| C．To reduce water usage. | D．To reduce waste. |
| A．Allowing planting grass before new houses. |
| B．Awarding those who reduced water usage. |
| C．Praising those who signed on the program. |
| D．Encouraging the residents to tear out grass. |
| A．Many residents won’t follow the ban. |
| B．Reaction to the reform will vary personally. |
| C．Water officials should consider many factors. |
| D．Other measures should be taken to protect water. |
| A．Las Vegas Plans to Ban Useless Grass |
| B．A Method Is Adopted to Save Las Vegas |
| C．Choices between Beauty and Practice |
| D．Grass Is Important but Useless in Las Vegas |
2 . 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. |
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 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. |
4 . 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 |
5 . A Dutch city will become the first in the world to ban meat adverts from public spaces in an effort to reduce consumption and greenhouse gas emissions (排放). Haarlem, which lies to the west of Amsterdam and has a population of 160,000, will pass the prohibition from 2024 after meat was added to a list of products thought to contribute to the climate crisis.
Adverts will not be allowed on Haarlem’s buses, shelters and screens in public spaces, causing complaints from the meat sector that the city government is “going too far in telling people what’s best for them”.
Recent studies suggest global food production is responsible for one-third of all planet-heating emissions, with the use of animals for meat accounting for twice the pollution of producing plant-based foods. Forests that absorb carbon dioxide are cut down for the grazing (放牧) of animals while fertilizers used for growing their feed are rich in nitrogen (氮), which can contribute to air and water pollution and climate change. Livestock also produces large quantities of methane (甲烷), a powerful greenhouse gas.
Ziggy Klazes, a councilor from the GroenLinks party, who drafted (起草) the law banning meat advertising, said she had not known the city would be the world’s first to enforce (执行) such a policy when she proposed it. She told the Haarlem 105 radio channel, “We are not about what people are baking and roasting in their own kitchen; if people wanted to continue eating meat, fine… Of course, there are a lot of people who find the decision unacceptable, but there are also a lot of people who think it’s fine.”
The ban also covers holiday flights, fossil fuels and cars that run on fossil fuels. The ban is delayed until 2024 due to existing contracts with companies that sell the products.
Research suggests that to meet the EU target of net zero emissions by 2050, meat consumption must be reduced to 24kg per person per year, compared with the current average of 82kg or 75.8kg in the Netherlands, which is the EU’s biggest meat exporter.
1. What does the underlined word prohibition in paragraph 1 probably mean?| A．Ban | B．city | C．climate | D．population |
| A．Acceptable | B．Dissatisfied | C．Uncared | D．Supportive |
| A．The seriousness of air pollution. |
| B．The benefits of eating plant-based foods. |
| C．The reasons for banning meat adverts in public. |
| D．The importance of protecting the environment. |
| A．24kg per person | B．82kg per person |
| C．75.8 per person | D．105kg per person |
6 . “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
1. What is the city’s law against?
| A．Walking dogs in the streets. | B．Cruelty to dogs. | C．Leaving mess from dogs. |
| A．Unconcerned (不关心的). | B．Supportive (支持的). | C．Doubtful (怀疑的). |
Besides such ethical concerns, the legal situations the autonomous vehicle industry is likely to be confronted with have
10 . New York has become the most recent state to ban the sale of some animals in pet stores. A new law signed by Governor Kathy Hochul bans the sale of dogs, cats, and rabbits in retail shops. The new law encourages pet stores to work with animal rescue groups and shelters to make space for rescued animals that are available for adoption.
California was the first state to pass a retail ban in 2017. Maryland followed in 2018 and a statewide ban in Illinois went into effect in February. Maine and Washington passed laws that ban the sales in new pet stores. Now, more than 300 cities and counties throughout the United States have passed pet-sale bans. There are at least 10,000 commercial pet stores in the country, and fewer than 3,000 of them are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, according to the estimates from the Humane Society of the United States.
In these commercial pet stores, animals are usually kept in dirty, crowded cages with limited access to medical care and human interaction. They often don’t get enough to eat or drink, have little protection from cold or heat; and don’t have a separate place to go to the bathroom. Many animals raised in the commercial pet stores go on to have physical and emotional problems.
Although conditions are often horrible, commercial pet stores are usually legal unless authorities are called in to close those with extremely inhumane (不人道的) conditions. “Dogs, cats, and rabbits across New York deserve loving homes and humane treatment,” Governor Hochul said in a statement. “I’m proud to sign this law, which will make meaningful steps to cut down on bad treatment and protect the welfare of animals across the state.” However, some pet store owners have argued that the law will cause a large quantity of pet stores in New York to close.
1. What is the new law signed by Governor Kathy Hochul about?| A．Avoiding abusing pets. |
| B．Preventing adopting pets. |
| C．Forbidding distributing pets. |
| D．Forbidding trading certain pets in pet stores. |
| A．The operation mode of commercial pet stores. |
| B．The problems faced by commercial pet stores. |
| C．The poor living conditions of the pets in pet stores. |
| D．The physical and emotional problems of some animals. |
| A．It is well received. |
| B．It is highly profitable. |
| C．It takes ages to see the results. |
| D．It may also have its shortcoming. |
| A．New York state offers medical care to animals |
| B．New York state bans pet stores from selling some animals |
| C．New York state assists pet store owners with laws |
| D．New York state ignores the horrible conditions of pets |
