�。跘］As long as more than a million people continue to live in direct poverty we can never hope to achieve national or international stability.

　�。跙］We need an international body with teeth-morally and in action. Perhaps the UN should be given its own force.

　�。跜］ Many members of the UN have only become nation states in the last few decades， so I can understand why they are so keen to hang on to their independence.

　�。跠］It is terrifying the way that power is increasingly disseminated to small， completely ruthless groups like terrorists， drug traffickers and local warlords. The great imponderable is that some nut could create a nuclear explosion. Or that some essentially local conflict could escalate out of control. You cannot isolate instability： it gets exported.

　�。跡］The mainly purpose of founding the United Nations is preventing aggressions and wars. It is hard to attribute the success to the United Nations although no new world war broke out since its establishment. The United Nations is always helpless of preventing the regional wars.

　�。跢］The notion of sovereignty is more and more strong while the influence of the United Nations is weaker and weaker.

　�。跥］Western countries must increase their development aid programmes， not out of charity but for reasons of self-interest.

　　Sample Two

　　Directions：

　　The following paragraphs are given in a wrong order. For Questions 41-45， you are required to reorganize these paragraphs into a coherent text by choosing from the list A-G to fill in each numbered box. The first and the last paragraphs have been placed for you in Boxes. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. （10 points）

　　[A] But the latest big revision to the statistics， published by the Commerce Department at the end of July， told a different story. It showed that personal savings rates are still on a downward trend， and have fallen particularly sharply in the past 18 months.
　　[B] Bill Clinton likes to boast that America's economy is in its best shape for 30 years. In many ways he is right： the expansion has hummed along for more than six years， inflation is low， and unemployment has tumbled to 4.8%， a level not seen since the 1960s. Yet there is one glaring difference between today's economy and the glory days of a generation ago： saving， or rather the lack of it.

　　[C] Personal saving is only one factor in America's overall rate of thrift. Firms make a contribution through corporate saving （in fact， many economists reckon the distinction between household and corporate saving is a rather arbitrary one）， and the government， too， plays a big role. The bigger the deficit， the more it drags down overall savings rates.

　　[D] At one level， this revision cleared up a bit of a mystery. Economists had been surprised at the lack of a “wealth effect”： people did not seem to be spending much more， despite huge appreciation in the value of their stock market assets. The new statistics show much higher consumption.

　　[E] The picture is not pretty. Since the mid-1970s the long-trend in household saving has been downwards. Recently it appeared that this picture might be changing： personal saving rates in the mid-1990s appeared flat， or even on a slightly upward trend.

　　[F] Last year Americans put only 4.3% of their disposable income in the piggy bank， just about half as much as their parents salted away in 1967. Unless this trend towards profligacy is stemmed， and preferably reversed， America's “miracle economy” will rest on shaky foundations. Less obvious， however， is how to do it.

　　[G] A decade ago， America's abysmal savings rates could be explained to a large extent by government profligacy. But now that the big and deficit has been tamed， and which the prospect of a balanced budget by 2002， it is time to turn attention to Americans themselves.

　　Order：

　　B→

　　41�薄�

　　42�薄�

　　43�薄�

　　44�薄�

　　45�薄�

　　D

　　Sample Three

　　Directions：

　　You are going to read a text about stupidity for dummies， followed by a list of examples. Choose the best example from the list A�睩 for each numbered subheading （41��45）。 There is one extra example which you do not need to use. Mark your answers on ANSWER SHEET 1. （10 points）

　　Sternberg， an expert in intelligence testing， contends that， contrary to public belief， stupidity is not the opposite of smartness. He points out that many of the singularly idiotic acts that come to public attention are the work of people who are， in fact， highly intelligent. He argues instead that stupidity is more properly viewed as the opposite of wisdom-which he sees as the ability to apply knowledge to achieve a common good. His “imbalance theory of foolishness” suggests that there are aspects of life as a smart person that actually foster stupidity. Which is to say， it sometimes takes a really smart person to do something truly stupid. Sternberg recently took the time to answer some of our stupid questions.

　�。�41）What attracted you to the study of stupidity？

　　The roots of the book were in my wondering about what's up with people who have very high intelligence in the traditional sense， but seem to be out to lunch in another sense.

　�。�42）The difference between stupidity， foolishness， dumbness and， say， plain boneheadedness：

　　The book is really about foolishness， which is the opposite of wisdom. There are many smart people who are unwise.

　　（43）Do you see stupidity as an objective behavior or ，as one of your contributors does， a subjective judgment that reflects more on the observer？

　Stupidity is not in the behavior， nor in the eyes of the observer. It is in the interaction between the person and the situation. Different kinds of situations elicit different behavior from people.
　�。�44）“The best way to avoid stupidity is not to be afraid of looking stupid�薄�

　　People often fail to learn because they do not want to look stupid. As a result， they make or repeat mistakes they could have avoided.

　�。�45）Of course， some would suggest that certain stupid behaviors are categorizable as something else. Some would say philandering or shoplifting， for example， are products of something other than stupidity.

　　I think it is a combination of the fallacies I mentioned： Egocentrism， omniscience， omnipotence and invulnerability. Many smart people are philanderers.

　　Everyone has weaknesses. The issue in terms of the book is what they do about these weaknesses—whether they find ways to make up for them or whether they allow them to destroy their lives.

　　[A] The foolish part is in the belief that one need only consider one's own feelings about the matter and not the feelings of others， especially the partner （egocentrism）； that it is not okay for others but that one knows all about these things so it is all right for oneself （omniscience）； that one can basically do whatever one wants because of who one is （omnipotence）； and that， unlike others suckers， one never will get caught （invulnerability）。

　　[B] How did Richard Nixon ever get involved in Watergate and the subsequent cover�瞮p？ What was Bill Clinton thinking when he kept repeating the same mistakes in his personal life？ More recently， how did the intelligent people who ran Enron think they would get away with a shell game？ There are lots of examples. And the truth is， some of them are in my own life， too. None of us is immune.

　　[C] For example， Clinton was very smart in most domains of his life， but in some kinds of interpersonal situations with women， he appears not to have been. The Enron bloodsuckers may have been perfectly fine in their home lives， but given the chance to rip off a corporation， they went for it. Problem is， we may see how sensibly we behave， on average， so that we are not alert for the kinds of situations where we act foolishly.

　　[D] Unfortunately， no. It usually takes others to point it out to us. Or， looking back， we often marvel at how we could have been oblivious to our stupidity. But the problem is that smart people often use their intelligence to find ways to immunize themselves or isolate themselves from feedback. For example， they may hire toadies who just tell them what they want to hear.

　　[E] Also， sometimes when they make mistakes， people try to cover them up so as not to appear to have been stupid and then look even stupider when the cover�瞮p comes to light. That， of course， is what happened to Nixon and Clinton， and to many， many others， such as currency traders who have tried to cover up losses or high-level executives at software companies who have tried to cover up improprieties.

　　[F] The book is not about stupidity in the classical sense， which is usually thought of as a very low IQ. So I would distinguish the “mental retardation” kind of stupidity from the kind of foolishness this book discusses. The problem is that smart people often do not realize how susceptible they are to being foolish， as any number of world leaders have gone out of their way to show.