TEXT C

　　For years， Europeans have been using “smart cards” to pay their way through the day. They use them in shops and restaurants， plug them into pubic into telephones as and parking meters. In France smart cards cover anything from a bistro bill to a swimming-pool entry fee. In American， smart cards are not nearly so common —— only about 43，000 are now circulating in the US and Canada —— but Forrester Research of Cambridge， Mass.， predicts that number will balloon to 4.7 million by the year 2002.

　　What is a smart card， exactly， and how does it work？

　　Also called a chip card because of the tiny microprocessor embedded in it， a smart card looks like the other plastic in your wallet. To make things more confusing， some smart cards pull double duty as regular ATM bank cards. The difference is that when you swipe your ATM （or debit） card at the grocery-store checkout， you're draining cash from your bank account. Smart cards， on the other hand， are worthless unless they are “loaded with cash value”， pulled directly from your bank account or traded for currency. The chip keeps track of the amounts stored and spent. The advantage， in theory， is convenience： consumers bother less with pocket change and are able to use plastic even at traditionally cash-only vendors. The electronic transaction doesn't require a signature， a PIN number or bank approval. Downside： lose the card， lose the money.

　　Most people are probably more familiar with stored-value cards equipped only with a magnetic strip， such as fare card issued to riders on the Washington metro or the New York City subway. The newer chip-enhanced versions， armed with more memory and processing power， have popped up in various places in the past years or so， from college campuses to military bases to sports stadiums. Other experiments are under way. A health-care claims processor in Indianapolis， Ind.， hopes smart cards will streamline medical-bill payments. In Ohio， food-stamp recipients receive a smart card rather paper vouchers.

　　Smart cards issued for general commerce are rarer， unless you happen to live in a place designated for a test run， such as Manhattan's Upper West Side. But big bank and plastic-purveying kings Visa and MasterCard are hot for the idea， promising more extensive trials and more elaborate， multipurpose cards capable of rendering everything else you carry —— plastic， paper or coin—— superfluous.

　　Today's smart cards may not be revolutionizing the way we buy the morning paper yet， but they could turn out to be right tool spur Internet commerce and banking. For the time being， though， smart cards are just another way to buy stuff. And it could be a while before even that catches on. Remember： some people still don't trust ATMs either.

　　44. Why are smart cards not nearly so common in American？

　　A. Probably because American have got used to ATM bank cards or stored-value cards.

　　B. Probably because American is too large.

　　C. Probably because American like signature.

　　D. Probably because American like paper vouchers.

　　45. The following are advantages of the chip card except that ____

　　A. consumers bother less with pocket change.

　　B. the transaction doesn't require a signature， a PIN number.

　　C. if you lose the card， you lose the money.

　　D. it is more convenient.

　　46. The aim of the article is to ____

　　A. show how to use smart cards.

　　B. show the difference between ATM card and chip card.

　　C. how the smart cards have become popular.

　　D. persuade Americans to use smart cards.

　　TEXT D

　　Paula Jones' case against Bill Clinton is now， for all possible political consequences and capacity for media sensation， a fairy routine lawsuit of its kind. It does， however， have enormous social significance. For those of us who care about sexual harassment， the matter of Jones v. Clinton is a great conundrum. Consider： if Jones， the former Arkansas state employee， proves her claims， then we must face the fact that we helped to elect someone —— Bill Clinton —— who has betrayed us on this vital issue. But if she is proved to be lying， then we must accept that we pushed onto the public agenda an issue that is venerable to manipulation by alleged victims. The skeptics will use Jones' case to cast doubt on the whole cause.

　　Still， Ms Jones deserves the chance to prove her case； she has a right to pursue this claim and have the process work. It will be difficult： these kinds of cases usually are， and Ms. Jones' task of suing a sitting president is harder than most.

　　She does have one thing sitting on her side： her case is in the courts. Sexual-harassment claims are really about violations of the alleged victims' civil rights， and there is no better forum for determining and assessing those violations —— and finding the truth —— than federal court. The judicial system can put aside political to decide these complicated issues. That is a feat that neither the Senate Judicial nor ethics committees have been able to accomplish—— witness the Clarence Thomas and Bob Packwood affairs. One lesson： the legal arena， not the political one， is the place to settle these sensitive problems.

　　Some have argued that the people （the “feminists”） who rallied around me have failed to support Jones. Our situations， however， are quite different. In 1991 the country was in the middle of a public debate over whether Clarence Thomas should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Throughout that summer， interest groups on both sides weighed in on his nomination. It was a public forum that invited a public conversation. But a pending civil action —— even one against the president —— does not generally invite that kind of public engagement.

　　Most of the public seems content to let the process move forward. And given the conundrum created by the claim， it is no wonder that many （“feminists” included） have been slow to jump into the Jones-Clinton fray. But people from all works of life remain open to her suit. We don't yet know which outcome we must confront： the president who betrayed the issue or the woman who used it. Whichever it is， we should continue to pursue sexual harassment with the same kind of energy and interest in eliminating the problem that we have in the past， regardless of who is the accused or the accuser. The statistics show that about 40 percent of women in the work force will encounter some form of harassment. We can't afford to abandon this issue now.

　　47. According to the passage， the Paula Jones' case was ____

　　A. nothing important. B. very significant C. doubtful. D. vulnerable.

　　48. The federal courts are much better than the Senate Judicial or ethics committees in determining and assessing those violations because ____

　　A. the federal courts have much bigger power.

　　B. the federal courts are forum for determining and assessing those violations.

　　C. the federal courts are more impartial.

　　D. the federal courts are political arena.

　　49. According to the passage， the issue of sexual harassment must be dealt with seriously because ____

　　A. the outcome is not known.

　　B. most of the public is not content.

　　C. many have been slow to jump into the Jones-Clinton fray.

　　D. as many as 40% of women in the work force will encounter it.

　　50. According to the passage， sexual harassment is to ____

　　A. violate politics. B. violate the Supreme Court.

　　C. cast doubt on the whole issue. D. violate civil rights.

　　Section B Skimming and Scanning （10 MIN.）

　　In this section there are seven passage followed by ten multiple-choice questions. Skim or scan them as required and then mark your answers on your Answer Sheet.