Text C
Richard, King of England from 1189 to 1199, with all his characteristic virtues and faults cast in a heroic mould is one of the most fascinating medieval figures. He has been described as the creature and embodiment of the age of chivalry, In those days the lion was much admired in heraldry, and more than one king sought to link himself with its repute. When Richard's contemporaries called him" Coeur de Lion"(The Lion heart), they paid a lasting compliment to the king of beasts. Little did the English people owe him for his services, and heavily did they pay for his adventures. He was in England only twice for a few short months in his ten years' reign; yet his memory has always English hearts, and seems to present throughout the centuries the pattern of the fighting man. In all deeds of prowess as well as in large schemes of war Richard shone. He was tall and delicately shaped strong in nerve and sinew, and most dexterous in arms. He reioiced in personal combat, and regarded his opponents without malice as necessary agents in his fame He loved war, not so much for the sake of glory or political ends, but as other men love science or poetry, for the excitement of the struggle and the glow of victory. By this his whole temperament was toned; and united with the highest qualities of the military commander, love of war called forth all the powers of his mind and body. Although a man of blood and violence, Richard was too impetuous to be either treacherous on habitually cruel. He was as ready to forgive as he was hasty to offend; he was open-handed and munificent to profusion; in war circumspect in design and skilful in execution; in political a child, lacking in subtlety and experience. His political alliances were formed upon his likes and dislikes; his political schemes had neither unity nor clearness of purpose. The advantages gained for him by military geoids were flung away through diplomatic ineptitude. When, on the journey to the East, Messina in Sicily was won by his arms he was easily persuaded to share with his polished, faithless ally, Philip Augustus, fruits of a victory which more wisely used might have foiled the French King's artful schemes. The rich and tenable acquisition of Cyprus was cast away even more easily than it was won. His life was one magnificent parade, which, when ended, left only an empty plain.
In 1199, when the difficulties of raising revenue for the endless war were at their height, good news was brought to King Richard. It was said there had been dug up near the castle of Chaluz, on the lands of one of his French vassals, a treasure of wonderful quality; a group of golden images of an emperor, his wife, sons and daughters, seated round a table, also of gold, had been unearthed. The King claimed this treasure as lord paramount. The lord of Chaluz resisted the demand, and the King laid siege to his small, weak castle. On the third day, as he rode daringly, near the wall. Confident in his hard-tried luck, a bolt from a crossbow struck him in the left shoulder by the neck. The wound, already deep, was aggravated by the necessary cutting out of the arrow-head. Gangrene set in, and Coeur de Lion knew that he must pay a soldier’s debt. He prepared for death with fortitude and calm, and in accordance with the principles he had followed. He arranged his affairs, he divided his personal belongings among his friends or bequeathed them to charity. He declared John to be his heir, and made all present swear fealty to him. He ordered the archer who had shot the fatal bolt, and who was now a prisoner, to be brought before him. He pardoned him, and made him a gift of money. For seven years he had not confessed for fear of being compelled to be reconciled to Philip, but now he received the offices of the Church with sincere and exemplary piety, and died in the forty-second year of his age on April 6, 1199, worthy, by the consent of all men, to sit with King Arthur and Roland another heroes of martial romance at some Eternal round Table, which we trust the Creator of the Universe in His comprehension will not have forgotten to provide.
The archer was flayed alive.
20 “little did the English people own him for his service” (paragraph one) means that the English
A. paid few taxes to him.
B gave him little respect.
C received little protection from him.
D had no real cause to feel grateful to him.
21. To say that his wife was a “ magnificent parade’( paragraph Two) implies that it was to some extent.
A .spent chiefly at war.
B impressive and admirable.
C lived too pompously
D. an empty show.
22. Richard’s behaviour as death approached showed.\
A. bravery and self-control.
B. Wisdom and correctness
C. Devotion and romance
D. Chivalry and charity
23. The point of the last short paragraph is that Richard was
A. cheated by his own successors
B. determined to take revenge on his enemies.
C. more generous to his enemies than his seccesors.
D unable to influence the behavior of his successors.
24. Which of the following phrase best describes Richard as seen by the author?
A. An aggressive king, too fond of war.
B. A brave king with minor faults.
C A competent but cunning soldier.
D A kind with great political skills.
25. The relationship between the first and second paragraphs is that
A. each presents one side of the picture.
B. the first generalizes the second gives examples.
C. the second is the logical result of the first.
D. both present Richard’s virtues and faults.

TEXT D
The miserable fate of Enron’s employees will be a landmark in business history, one of those awful events that everyone agrees must never be allowed to happen again. This urge is understandable and noble: thousands have lost virtually all their retirement savings with the demise of Enron stock. But making sure it never happens again may not be possible, because the sudden impoverishment of those Enron workers represents something even larger than it seems. It’s the latest turn in the unwinding of one of the most audacious promise of the 20th century.
? The promise was assured economic security-even comfort- for essentially everyone in the developed world. With the explosion of wealth, that began in the 19th century it became possible to think about a possibility no one had dared to dream before. The fear at the center of daily living since caveman days- lack of food warmth, shelter- would at last lose its power to terrify. That remarkable promise became reality in many ways. Governments created welfare systems for anyone in need and separate programmes for the elderly (Social Security in the U.S.). Labour unions promised not only better pay for workers but also pensions for retirees. Giant corporations came into being and offered the possibility- in some cases the promise- of lifetime employment plus guaranteed pensions. The cumulative effect was a fundamental change in how millions of people approached life itself, a reversal of attitude that most rank as one of the largest in human history. For millennia the average person’s stance toward providing for himself had been. Ultimately I’m on my own. Now it became, ultimately I’ll be taken care of. The early hints that this promise might be broken on a large scale came in the 1980s. U.S. business had become uncompetitive globally and began restructuring massively, with huge Layoffs. The trend accelerated in the 1990s as the bastions of corporate welfare faced reality. IBM ended it’s no-layoff policy. AT&T fired thousands, many of whom found such a thing simply incomprehensible, and a few of whom killed themselves. The other supposed guarantors of our economic security were also in decline. Labour-union membership and power fell to their lowest levels in decades. President Clinton signed a historic bill scaling back welfare. Americans realized that Social Security won’t provide social security for any of us.
A less visible but equally significant trend a affected pensions. To make costs easier to control, companies moved away from defined benefit pension plans, which obligate them to pay out specified amounts years in the future, to define contribution plans, which specify only how much goes into the play today. The most common type of defined-contribution plan is the 401(k). the significance of the 401(k) is that it puts most of the responsibility for a person’s economic fate back on the employee. Within limits the employee must decide how much goes into the plan each year and how it gets invested- the two factors that will determine how much it’s worth when the employee retires. Which brings us back to Enron? Those billions of dollars in vaporized retirement savings went in employees’ 401(k) accounts. That is, the employees chose how much money to put into those accounts and then chose how to invest it. Enron matched a certain proportion of each employee’s 401(k) contribution with company stock, so everyone was going to end up with some Enron in his or her portfolio; but that could be regarded as a freebie, since nothing compels a company to match employee contributions at all. At least two special features complicate the Enron case. First, some shareholders charge top management with illegally covering up the company’s problems, prompting investors to hang on when they should have sold. Second, Enron’s 401(k) accounts were locked while the company changed plan administrators in October, when the stock was falling, so employees could not have closed their accounts if they wanted to.
But by far the largest cause of this human tragedy is that thousands of employees were heavily overweighed in Enron stock. Many had placed 100% of their 401(k) assets in the stock rather than in the 18 other investment options they were offered. Of course that wasn’t prudent, but it’s what some of them did.
The Enron employees’’ retirement disaster is part of the larger trend away from guaranteed economic security. That’s why preventing such a thing from ever happening again may be impossible. The huge attitudinal shift to I’ll-be-taken-care-of took at least a generation. The shift back may take just as long. It won’t be complete until a new generation of employees see assured economic comfort as a 20th- century quirk, and understand not just intellectually but in their bones that, like most people in most times and places, they’re on their own
26. Why does the author say at the beginning “The miserable fate of Enron’s employees will be a landmark in business history…”?
A. Because the company has gone bankrupt.
B. Because such events would never happen again.
C. Because many Enron workers lost their retirement savings.
D. Because it signifies a turning point in economic security.
27. According to the passage, the combined efforts by governments, layout unions and big corporations to guarantee economic comfort have led to a significant change in
A. people’s outlook on life.
B. people’s life styles.
C. people’s living standard
D. people’s social values.
28. Changes in pension schemes were also part of
A. the corporate lay-offs.
B. the government cuts in welfare spending.
C. the economic restructuring.
D. the warning power of labors unions.
29. Thousands of employees chose Enron as their sole investment option mainly because
A. The 401(k) made them responsible for their own future.
B. Enron offered to add company stock to their investment.
C. their employers intended to cut back on pension spending.
D. Enron’s offer was similar to a defined-benefit plan.
30. Which is NOT seen as a lesson drawn from the Enron disaster?
A. 401(k) assets should be placed in more than one investment option.
B. Employees have to take up responsibilities for themselves.
C. Such events could happen again as it is not easy to change people’s mind.
D. Economic security won’t be taken for granted by future young workers.