My first week in the United States was a cultural shock. Everything felt new to me, including the style of conversation, the community I lived in and even the type of food people ate.

    In our community back home, people eat mutton and chicken. Pork and beef are also common among other communities, but eating beef is taken as an illegal act. Unlike Nepal, eating beef is common in the West where most of the people follow religions other than Hinduism.

    Food is just an example. When people move from one part of the world to another, they should adapt（适应）themselves to the new culture. For example, going to the bars or getting drunk is not acceptable in my community, but it is common in the US after a certain age.

    I was raised in a traditional Hindu family in Nepal. We have a conservative（保守的，谨慎的）opinion towards marriage. Arranged marriages（包办婚姻）are common in which families decide whether the two should get married. Free love marriages are not allowed and are seldom seen. Same-sex marriage is also considered impossible.

    To me, culture is a matter of habit. The culture is so deep-rooted in people's minds that most people are against changes. It is always easy for them to do what they have been doing throughout their life. It may be difficult for anyone to adapt to a new culture.

    However, with travel being an unavoidable thing for modern people, one always comes across different cultures. In such cases, one should be respectful and adaptive to the culture other people follow. The world is always a better place to live in when we have spaces for people of all cultures.

    It seems that in many places storms visit more often. When a storm is coming, most people leave the area as quickly as possible and head for safety. But there are a few people who will get into their cars and go straight for the center of the storm. These people are willing to risk being killed by floods or 100-kilometer-an-hour winds for the excitement of watching the storm close up.

    "Storm chasing" is becoming an increasingly popular hobby, especially in the Midwest of the United States, where there are frequent storms between March and July. A storm chaser begins the day by checking the Internet for the latest weather reports, and then drives up to 1,000 kilometers to where the storm will be and waits for it to develop.

    Although anyone can do it, storm chasing is extremely dangerous. The power of a big storm can throw a cow into the air or destroy a whole house in seconds. Storm chasers are also often hurt in accidents caused by driving in a heavy rain. If you are a beginner, it is much safer to join a group for storm-chasing vacations during the storm season.

    Even then, storm chasing is not all adventure and excitement. "Storm chasing is 95% driving," says Daniel Lynch, who spends most of his summer storm-chasing. "Sometimes you can sit around for hours waiting for something to happen, and all you get is blue sky and a few light showers."

    However, for storm chasers, it is all worth it. "When you get close to a storm, it is the most exciting sight you will ever see in your life," says Jasper Morley. "Every storm is an example of the power of nature. It is the greatest show on Earth."

    Everyone likes living in a clean and comforting environment. If the environment are bad, it will affect our body, and make us not feel well. Sometimes we may be terribly ill. At that time we don't want to work, and we have to stay in bed and rest at home. So the environment is very important to us.

    It's germs that makes us ill. There are germs everywhere, They are very small and you can't find them with your own eyes, but you can see them with a microscope They are very small and there may be hundreds of them on a very small thing, Germs can always be found in dirty water. When we look at dirty water under the microscope, we shall see them in it. Germs can also be found in air and dust. If you cut your finger, some of the dust from the floor may go into it, and you will have much pain in it. Sometimes the germs will go into all of your body, and you will have pain everywhere.

    To keep us healthy, we should try our best to make our environment become cleaner and tidier. This needs us to act together.

    It's nothing unusual for people to multitask nowadays. But the ability to do a number of things at the same time could be different between the two sexes.

    A team of UK researchers recently compared the performances of 120 women and 120 men in a computer test about switching(转换) between tasks of counting and shape recognition.

    Men equalled women when tasks were done one at a time. But when the tasks were mixed up, there was a clear difference. According to the paper published in the journal BMC Psychology, both women and men slowed down and made more mistakes as the switching became more rapid. But men were slower, taking 77 percent longer to answer, while women took 69 percent longer.

    To make the experiment more connected to day-to-day life, researchers tried a second test. A group of women and men were given eight minutes to complete a series of everyday tasks, such as finding restaurants on a map, doing simple math problems, answering a phone call, or deciding how they would search for a lost key in a field.

    Once again, women performed better than men in the test, especially in the key-searching task.

    Where do women get the ability to keep organized under pressure better than men? Researchers believe that it has its origins in evolution(进化). In ancient times, women had to keep an eye on children while cooking meals. Meanwhile, men only needed to focus on hunting.

    However, as with all studies, the results don't necessarily apply to every single person in the world. "We don't mean that men can't multitask, or that only women can," researcher Keith Laws of the University of Hertfordshire, UK, told BBC News. "We are saying that the average woman is better able to organize her time and switch between tasks than the average man."

    With the possible exception of equal rights, perhaps the most controversial issue across the United States today is the death penalty. Many argue that it is an effective deterrent (威慑) to murder, while others maintain there is no convincing evidence that the death penalty reduces the number of murders.

    The principal argument advanced by those opposed to the death penalty, basically, is that it is cruel and inhuman punishment, which is the mark of a brutal society, and finally that it is of questionable effectiveness as a deterrent to crime anyway.

    In our opinion, the death penalty is a necessary evil. Throughout recorded history there have always been those extreme individuals in every society who were capable of terribly violent crimes such as murder. But some are more extreme than others.

    For example, it is one thing to take the life of another in a fit of blind rage, but quite another to coldly plot and carry out the murder of one or more people in the style of a butcher. Thus, murder, like all other crimes, is a matter of relative degree. While it could be argued with some conviction that the criminal in the first instance should be merely separated from society, such should not be the fate of the latter type murderer.

    The value of the death penalty as a deterrent to crime may be open to debate. But the overwhelming majority of citizens believe that the death penalty protects them. Their belief is strengthened by evidence which shows that the death penalty deters murder. For example, from 1954 to 1963, when the death penalty was consistently imposed in California, the murder rate remained between three and four murders for each 100,000 population. Since 1964 the death penalty has been carried out only once, and the murder rate has risen to 10.4 murders for each 100,000 population. The sharp climb in the state's murder rate, which began when executions stopped, is no coincidence. It is convincing evidence that the death penalty does deter many murderers. If the bill reestablishing the death penalty is banned, innocent people will be murdered—some whose lives may have been saved if the death penalty were in effect. This is literally a life or death matter. The lives of thousands of innocent people must be protected.

When learning a new language, speakers often have non-native accents. Linguistic research suggests such accent is shaped by the speaker's first language that they learned when growing up. Schepens' team's research puts new light on just how strong these effects can be.

There're similar researches from other scientists, but Schepens' team analyzed a data set of more than 50,000 adults, who learned Dutch as their second or third languages. Besides, these adults came from more than 60 different first language backgrounds. These data were collected through a state exam administered by the Dutch government for foreigners that enter Holland. The exam rated each test taker's Dutch speaking proficiency(熟练，水平)

The team found that about half of the individual difference in the proficiency of learners could be accounted for by a handful of reasons: the learner's education and sex (women had higher scores than men), the learner's age when they arrived in Holland, the time they spent in Holland, and the learner's first language. This last reason was the most prominent one since it accounts for 50 percent of the explained difference in learners' proficiency.

What leads to this? Working with professor Hout, Schepens's team studied the linguistic similarity between Dutch and the 62 first languages spoken by different learners in the database. The huge majority—about 80 percent—of the effect of the language background was explained by linguistic similarity. Of the test takers who grew up speaking Arabic, only about 5 percent scored higher in Dutch speaking proficiency than the worst 50 percent of the test takers that grew up speaking German.

"Our results suggest this is largely due to the fact that German shares many linguistic characteristics with Dutch, but Arabic does not," says Schepens.

"This suggests a large part of the non-nativeness of a learner is simply due to the language they grew up with, and this reason is entirely out of their control," says Florian Jaeger." The result can play a part in language teaching."