[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→
42→
43→
44→
45→
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 AF for each numbered subheading （4145）。 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？
[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→
42→
43→
44→
45→
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 AF for each numbered subheading （4145）。 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？