Recent federal regulatory activity has been _______ to protect the privacy of consumer’s personal information.A.implementing B.implement C.implemented D.implements

Text 2 A deal is a deal-except,apparently,when Entergy is involved.The company,a major energy supplier in New England,provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the strict nuclear regulations.Instead,the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court,as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running.It’s a stunning move.The conflict has been surfacing since 2002,when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant,an aging reactor in Vernon.As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale,the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012.In 2006,the state went a step further,requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval.Then,too,the company went along.Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments,or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next.A string of accidents,including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage,raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management–especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe.Enraged by Entergy’s behavior,the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation,and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues.The legal issues in the case are obscure:whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power,legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend.Certainly,there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules.But had Entergy kept its word,that debate would be beside the point.The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state.But there should be consequences.Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic trust.Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States,including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth.Pledging to run Pilgrim safely,the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years.But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission（NRC）reviews the company’s application,it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.27.By entering into the 2002 agreement,Entergy intended to

A.obtain protection from Vermont regulators.
B.seek favor from the federal legislature.
C.acquire an extension of its business license.
D.get permission to purchase a power plant.

Text 2 A deal is a deal-except,apparently,when Entergy is involved.The company,a major energy supplier in New England,provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the strict nuclear regulations.Instead,the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court,as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running.It’s a stunning move.The conflict has been surfacing since 2002,when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant,an aging reactor in Vernon.As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale,the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012.In 2006,the state went a step further,requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval.Then,too,the company went along.Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments,or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next.A string of accidents,including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage,raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management–especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe.Enraged by Entergy’s behavior,the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation,and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues.The legal issues in the case are obscure:whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power,legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend.Certainly,there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules.But had Entergy kept its word,that debate would be beside the point.The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state.But there should be consequences.Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic trust.Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States,including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth.Pledging to run Pilgrim safely,the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years.But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission（NRC）reviews the company’s application,it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.26.The phrase“reneging on”（Line 3.para.1）is closest in meaning to

A.condemning.
B.reaffirming.
C.dishonoring.
D.securing.

According to the author, small talk is often used__________.

A.to invade other's private affairs
B.to share a secret between intimate friends
C.to open and maintain channels of communication
D.to protect one's own privacy

Text 2 America rarely looks to Brussels for guidance.Commercial freedom appeals more than governmental control.But when it comes to data privacy,the case for copying the best bits of the European Union's approach is compelling.The General Data Protection Regulation（GDPR）is due to come into force next month.It is rules-heavy and has its flaws,but its premise that consumers should be in charge of their personal data is the right one.The law lets users gain access to,and to correct,information that firms hold on them.It gives consumers the right to transfer their data to another organisation.It requires companies to define how they keep data secure.And it lets regulators levy big fines if firms break the rules.America has enacted privacy rules in areas such as health care.But it has never passed an overarching data-protection law.The failings of America's self-regulatory approach are becoming clearer by the week.Large parts of the online economy are fuelled by data that consumers spray around without thought.Companies'mysterious privacy policies obscure what they do with their users'information,which often amounts to pretty much anything they please.Facebook is embroiled in crisis after news that data on 87m users had been passed to a political-campaign firm.These are changing the calculus about the benefits of self-regulation.Opponents of privacy legislation have long argued that the imposition of rules would keep technology companies from innovating.Yet as trust leaks out of the system,innovation is likely to suffer.If consumers worry about what smartphone apps may do with their data,fewer new offerings will take off.It is striking that many of the firms preparing for the GDPR's arrival in Europe are excited that the law has forced them to put their data house in order.The need to minimise legal fragmentation only adds to the case for America to adopt bits of the GDPR.One reason behind the new rules in the EU was to harmonise data-protection laws so that firms can do business across Europe more easily.America is moving in the opposite direction.States that have detected a need for greater privacy are drafting their own laws.California has pending legislation that would establish a data-protection authority to regulate how the state's big tech firms use Californians'personal data.The GDPR is far from perfect.At nearly 100 articles long,it is too complex and tries to achieve too many things.The compliance costs for smaller firms,in particular,look burdensome.But these are arguments for using it as a template,not for ignoring the issue of data protection.If America continues on today's path,it will fail to protect the privacy of its citizens and long-term health of its firms.America's data economy has thrived so far with hardly any rules.That era is over.
It can be inferred from Paragraph 4 that privacy legislation is likely to_____

A.be opposed by tech companies
B.cause concerns among consumers
C.promote corporate innovation
D.hinder the popularity of apps

Text 2 America rarely looks to Brussels for guidance.Commercial freedom appeals more than governmental control.But when it comes to data privacy,the case for copying the best bits of the European Union's approach is compelling.The General Data Protection Regulation（GDPR）is due to come into force next month.It is rules-heavy and has its flaws,but its premise that consumers should be in charge of their personal data is the right one.The law lets users gain access to,and to correct,information that firms hold on them.It gives consumers the right to transfer their data to another organisation.It requires companies to define how they keep data secure.And it lets regulators levy big fines if firms break the rules.America has enacted privacy rules in areas such as health care.But it has never passed an overarching data-protection law.The failings of America's self-regulatory approach are becoming clearer by the week.Large parts of the online economy are fuelled by data that consumers spray around without thought.Companies'mysterious privacy policies obscure what they do with their users'information,which often amounts to pretty much anything they please.Facebook is embroiled in crisis after news that data on 87m users had been passed to a political-campaign firm.These are changing the calculus about the benefits of self-regulation.Opponents of privacy legislation have long argued that the imposition of rules would keep technology companies from innovating.Yet as trust leaks out of the system,innovation is likely to suffer.If consumers worry about what smartphone apps may do with their data,fewer new offerings will take off.It is striking that many of the firms preparing for the GDPR's arrival in Europe are excited that the law has forced them to put their data house in order.The need to minimise legal fragmentation only adds to the case for America to adopt bits of the GDPR.One reason behind the new rules in the EU was to harmonise data-protection laws so that firms can do business across Europe more easily.America is moving in the opposite direction.States that have detected a need for greater privacy are drafting their own laws.California has pending legislation that would establish a data-protection authority to regulate how the state's big tech firms use Californians'personal data.The GDPR is far from perfect.At nearly 100 articles long,it is too complex and tries to achieve too many things.The compliance costs for smaller firms,in particular,look burdensome.But these are arguments for using it as a template,not for ignoring the issue of data protection.If America continues on today's path,it will fail to protect the privacy of its citizens and long-term health of its firms.America's data economy has thrived so far with hardly any rules.That era is over.
The most suitable title for this text would be____

A.American firms in Europe will have to comply with the GDPR
B.America should protect its citizens'privacy and its firms'health
C.America should borrow from Europe's data-privacy law
D.America's data economy is evolving into a new era

Text 2 Internet service providers have realized that they are sitting on a treasure chest of data about your online activities that they could be selling to advertisers.Recognizing the privacy threat,the Federal Communications Commission adopted rules that would have stopped them from doing so without your consent,but Congress recently shot down the regulation.This is a big deal.Privacy doesn't merely benefit individuals;it fundamentally shapes how society functions.It is crucial for marginalized communities and for social movements.Privacy enables these groups to network,organize,and develop their ideas before challenging the status quo.But when people know they're being tracked and monitored,they change their behavior.This chilling effect hurts our intellectual freedoms and our capacity for social progress.The data that tracks our behavior feeds into machine-learning algorithms that make judgments about us.When used for advertising,they can reproduce our own prejudiced behavior.Marketers can use machine learning to figure out your unique features-do you resDond better to words or to pictures?Do you make impulsive shopping decisions?-to target you with exactly the advertisement that will best persuade you.When consequential decisions about employment or loans are made using this kind of data,the result can feel absurd and incomprehensible,because these systems aren't programmed to explain their decisions.There aren't yet effective ways for humans to hold algorithms accountable for how they categorize us.The good news is how effective technology can be in preventing tracking.We found that ad blockers and other browser-privacy tools can decrease tracking by 80 percent or more.More complex tools can be even more effective.In other worcls,the more technically savvy among us can enjoy dramatically better privacy and digital freedoms.But this has resulted in a technological"arms race,"which is worrying by itself,but also because such technical skill correlates with historically advantaged groups.Meanwhile,publishers are caught in the ad-blocking crossfire,endangering the free press.One bright spot is that online privacy research has had a tremendous effect.It has helped regulators curb the worst of the offenses,forced companies to roll back invasions because of public-relations pressure,spurred the development of privacy tools,and developed a healthy public debate about online tracking.The fight for privacy is now closely linked to the fight for digital civil liberties and democratic values,and it is a movement that includes activists,artists,journalists,researchers,and everyday users of technology.There's tremendous power in your hands to take charge of your own privacy as well as foster these societal values.
According to Paragraph l,Congress intends to____.

A.protect citizens'personal data
B.monitor advertisers'online activities
C.allow ISPs to sell users'data
D.approve the FCC's privacy rules

On which of the following did the Justices agree，according to Paragraph 4？( )

A.Federal officers’duty to withhold immigrants’information.
B.States’independence from federal immigration law.
C.States’legitimate role in immigration enforcement.
D.Congress’s intervention in immigration enforcement.

Text 2 A deal is a deal-except,apparently,when Entergy is involved.The company,a major energy supplier in New England,provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the strict nuclear regulations.Instead,the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court,as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running.It’s a stunning move.The conflict has been surfacing since 2002,when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant,an aging reactor in Vernon.As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale,the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012.In 2006,the state went a step further,requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval.Then,too,the company went along.Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments,or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next.A string of accidents,including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage,raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management–especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe.Enraged by Entergy’s behavior,the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation,and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues.The legal issues in the case are obscure:whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power,legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend.Certainly,there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules.But had Entergy kept its word,that debate would be beside the point.The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state.But there should be consequences.Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic trust.Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States,including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth.Pledging to run Pilgrim safely,the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years.But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission（NRC）reviews the company’s application,it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.30.It can be inferred from the last paragraph that

A.Entergy’s business elsewhere might be affected.
B.the authority of the NRC will be defied.
C.Entergy will withdraw its Plymouth application.
D.Vermont’s reputation might be damaged.

Text 2 A deal is a deal-except,apparently,when Entergy is involved.The company,a major energy supplier in New England,provoked justified outrage in Vermont last week when it announced it was reneging on a longstanding commitment to abide by the strict nuclear regulations.Instead,the company has done precisely what it had long promised it would not challenge the constitutionality of Vermont’s rules in the federal court,as part of a desperate effort to keep its Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant running.It’s a stunning move.The conflict has been surfacing since 2002,when the corporation bought Vermont’s only nuclear power plant,an aging reactor in Vernon.As a condition of receiving state approval for the sale,the company agreed to seek permission from state regulators to operate past 2012.In 2006,the state went a step further,requiring that any extension of the plant’s license be subject to Vermont legislature’s approval.Then,too,the company went along.Either Entergy never really intended to live by those commitments,or it simply didn’t foresee what would happen next.A string of accidents,including the partial collapse of a cooling tower in 207 and the discovery of an underground pipe system leakage,raised serious questions about both Vermont Yankee’s safety and Entergy’s management–especially after the company made misleading statements about the pipe.Enraged by Entergy’s behavior,the Vermont Senate voted 26 to 4 last year against allowing an extension.Now the company is suddenly claiming that the 2002 agreement is invalid because of the 2006 legislation,and that only the federal government has regulatory power over nuclear issues.The legal issues in the case are obscure:whereas the Supreme Court has ruled that states do have some regulatory authority over nuclear power,legal scholars say that Vermont case will offer a precedent-setting test of how far those powers extend.Certainly,there are valid concerns about the patchwork regulations that could result if every state sets its own rules.But had Entergy kept its word,that debate would be beside the point.The company seems to have concluded that its reputation in Vermont is already so damaged that it has noting left to lose by going to war with the state.But there should be consequences.Permission to run a nuclear plant is a poblic trust.Entergy runs 11 other reactors in the United States,including Pilgrim Nuclear station in Plymouth.Pledging to run Pilgrim safely,the company has applied for federal permission to keep it open for another 20 years.But as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission（NRC）reviews the company’s application,it should keep it mind what promises from Entergy are worth.29.In the author’s view,the Vermont case will test

A.Entergy’s capacity to fulfill all its promises.
B.the mature of states’patchwork regulations.
C.the federal authority over nuclear issues.
D.the limits of states’power over nuclear issues.

In recent years, much more emphasis has been put ___________ developing the students′ productive skills.

A.onto
B.over
C.in
D.on

Racial discrimination has still___________ in some parts of the U.S.A. since itafter the Civil War.

A.been existed; has been done away
B.existed; has been done away with
C.been existed; has been done away with
D.existed; was done away with

Text 2 America rarely looks to Brussels for guidance.Commercial freedom appeals more than governmental control.But when it comes to data privacy,the case for copying the best bits of the European Union's approach is compelling.The General Data Protection Regulation（GDPR）is due to come into force next month.It is rules-heavy and has its flaws,but its premise that consumers should be in charge of their personal data is the right one.The law lets users gain access to,and to correct,information that firms hold on them.It gives consumers the right to transfer their data to another organisation.It requires companies to define how they keep data secure.And it lets regulators levy big fines if firms break the rules.America has enacted privacy rules in areas such as health care.But it has never passed an overarching data-protection law.The failings of America's self-regulatory approach are becoming clearer by the week.Large parts of the online economy are fuelled by data that consumers spray around without thought.Companies'mysterious privacy policies obscure what they do with their users'information,which often amounts to pretty much anything they please.Facebook is embroiled in crisis after news that data on 87m users had been passed to a political-campaign firm.These are changing the calculus about the benefits of self-regulation.Opponents of privacy legislation have long argued that the imposition of rules would keep technology companies from innovating.Yet as trust leaks out of the system,innovation is likely to suffer.If consumers worry about what smartphone apps may do with their data,fewer new offerings will take off.It is striking that many of the firms preparing for the GDPR's arrival in Europe are excited that the law has forced them to put their data house in order.The need to minimise legal fragmentation only adds to the case for America to adopt bits of the GDPR.One reason behind the new rules in the EU was to harmonise data-protection laws so that firms can do business across Europe more easily.America is moving in the opposite direction.States that have detected a need for greater privacy are drafting their own laws.California has pending legislation that would establish a data-protection authority to regulate how the state's big tech firms use Californians'personal data.The GDPR is far from perfect.At nearly 100 articles long,it is too complex and tries to achieve too many things.The compliance costs for smaller firms,in particular,look burdensome.But these are arguments for using it as a template,not for ignoring the issue of data protection.If America continues on today's path,it will fail to protect the privacy of its citizens and long-term health of its firms.America's data economy has thrived so far with hardly any rules.That era is over.
Facebook is mentioned to show that_____.

A.America needs a general data-protection law
B.online economy relies heavily on consumer data
C.online news can produce strong economic impact
D.America has benefited greatly from self-regulation

Text 2 America rarely looks to Brussels for guidance.Commercial freedom appeals more than governmental control.But when it comes to data privacy,the case for copying the best bits of the European Union's approach is compelling.The General Data Protection Regulation（GDPR）is due to come into force next month.It is rules-heavy and has its flaws,but its premise that consumers should be in charge of their personal data is the right one.The law lets users gain access to,and to correct,information that firms hold on them.It gives consumers the right to transfer their data to another organisation.It requires companies to define how they keep data secure.And it lets regulators levy big fines if firms break the rules.America has enacted privacy rules in areas such as health care.But it has never passed an overarching data-protection law.The failings of America's self-regulatory approach are becoming clearer by the week.Large parts of the online economy are fuelled by data that consumers spray around without thought.Companies'mysterious privacy policies obscure what they do with their users'information,which often amounts to pretty much anything they please.Facebook is embroiled in crisis after news that data on 87m users had been passed to a political-campaign firm.These are changing the calculus about the benefits of self-regulation.Opponents of privacy legislation have long argued that the imposition of rules would keep technology companies from innovating.Yet as trust leaks out of the system,innovation is likely to suffer.If consumers worry about what smartphone apps may do with their data,fewer new offerings will take off.It is striking that many of the firms preparing for the GDPR's arrival in Europe are excited that the law has forced them to put their data house in order.The need to minimise legal fragmentation only adds to the case for America to adopt bits of the GDPR.One reason behind the new rules in the EU was to harmonise data-protection laws so that firms can do business across Europe more easily.America is moving in the opposite direction.States that have detected a need for greater privacy are drafting their own laws.California has pending legislation that would establish a data-protection authority to regulate how the state's big tech firms use Californians'personal data.The GDPR is far from perfect.At nearly 100 articles long,it is too complex and tries to achieve too many things.The compliance costs for smaller firms,in particular,look burdensome.But these are arguments for using it as a template,not for ignoring the issue of data protection.If America continues on today's path,it will fail to protect the privacy of its citizens and long-term health of its firms.America's data economy has thrived so far with hardly any rules.That era is over.
Which of the following is true,according to Paragraph 5?

A.The GDPR may result in fragmentation of international law.
B.America is restricting its firms from doing business in Europe.
C.American states have detected a need for greater data privacy.
D.California is considering legislation to protect personal data.

Text 2 America rarely looks to Brussels for guidance.Commercial freedom appeals more than governmental control.But when it comes to data privacy,the case for copying the best bits of the European Union's approach is compelling.The General Data Protection Regulation（GDPR）is due to come into force next month.It is rules-heavy and has its flaws,but its premise that consumers should be in charge of their personal data is the right one.The law lets users gain access to,and to correct,information that firms hold on them.It gives consumers the right to transfer their data to another organisation.It requires companies to define how they keep data secure.And it lets regulators levy big fines if firms break the rules.America has enacted privacy rules in areas such as health care.But it has never passed an overarching data-protection law.The failings of America's self-regulatory approach are becoming clearer by the week.Large parts of the online economy are fuelled by data that consumers spray around without thought.Companies'mysterious privacy policies obscure what they do with their users'information,which often amounts to pretty much anything they please.Facebook is embroiled in crisis after news that data on 87m users had been passed to a political-campaign firm.These are changing the calculus about the benefits of self-regulation.Opponents of privacy legislation have long argued that the imposition of rules would keep technology companies from innovating.Yet as trust leaks out of the system,innovation is likely to suffer.If consumers worry about what smartphone apps may do with their data,fewer new offerings will take off.It is striking that many of the firms preparing for the GDPR's arrival in Europe are excited that the law has forced them to put their data house in order.The need to minimise legal fragmentation only adds to the case for America to adopt bits of the GDPR.One reason behind the new rules in the EU was to harmonise data-protection laws so that firms can do business across Europe more easily.America is moving in the opposite direction.States that have detected a need for greater privacy are drafting their own laws.California has pending legislation that would establish a data-protection authority to regulate how the state's big tech firms use Californians'personal data.The GDPR is far from perfect.At nearly 100 articles long,it is too complex and tries to achieve too many things.The compliance costs for smaller firms,in particular,look burdensome.But these are arguments for using it as a template,not for ignoring the issue of data protection.If America continues on today's path,it will fail to protect the privacy of its citizens and long-term health of its firms.America's data economy has thrived so far with hardly any rules.That era is over.
According to Paragraphs l and 2,GDPR——.

A.stresses commercial freedom over governmental control
B.aims to give citizens the control of their personal data
C.grants companies the right to collect user information
D.recognizes the legitimacy of data transfer among firms