It is only the Queen who has preserved the monarchy’s reputation with her rather ordinary (if well-heeled) granny style.The danger will come with Charles. Who has both an expensive taste of lifestyle and a pretty hierarchical view of theworld. He has failed to understand that monarchies have largely survived because they provide a service- as non-controversial and non-political heads of state. Charles ought to know that as English history shows, it is kings, not republicans, who are the monarchy’s worst enemies.

21.According to the first two paragraphs, King Juan Carlos of Spain

[A] used to enjoy high public support

[B] was unpopular among European royals

[C] eased his relationship with his rivals

[D] ended his reign in embarrassment

22.Monarchs are kept as heads of state in Europe mostly

[A] owing to their undoubted and respectable status

[B] to achieve a balance between tradition and reality

[C] to give voters more public figures to look up to

[D] due to their everlasting political embodiment

23.Which of the following is shown to be odd, according to Paragraph 4?

[A] Aristocrats’ excessive reliance on inherited wealth

[B] The role of the nobility in modern democracies

[C] The simple lifestyle of the aristocratic families

[D] The nobility’s adherence to their privileges

24. The British royals ”have most of fear” because Charles

[A] takes a tough line on political issues

[B] fails to change his lifestyle as advised

[C] takes republicans as his potential allies

[D] fails to adapt himself to his future role

25.Which of the following is the best title of the text?

[A] Carlos, Glory and Disgrace Combined

[B] Charles, Anxious to Succeed to the Throne

[C] Carlos, a Lesson for All European Monarchs

[D] Charles, Slow to React to the Coming Threats.

Text2

JUST HOW much does the Constitution protect your digital data? The Supreme Court is only just coming to grips with that question. On Tuesday,it will consider whether police can search the contents of a mobile phonewithout a warrant if the phone is on or around a person during an arrest.

California has asked the justices to refrain from a sweeping ruling, particularly one that upsets the old assumption that authorities may search through the effects of suspects at the time of their arrest. Even if the justices are tempted, the state argues, it is hard for judges to assess the implications of new and rapidly changing technologies.

The court would be recklessly modest if it followed California’s advice. Enough of the implications are discernable, even obvious, that the justices can and should provide updated guidelines to police, lawyers and defendants.

They should start by discarding California’s lame argument that exploring the contents of a smartphone — a vast storehouse of digital information — is similar to, say, rifling through a suspect’s purse. The court has ruled that police don’t violate the Fourth Amendment when they sift through the wallet or pocketbook of an arrestee without a warrant. But exploring one’s smartphone is more like entering his or her home. A smartphone may contain an arrestee’s reading history, financial history, medical history and comprehensive records of recent correspondence. The development of “cloud computing,” meanwhile, means that police officers could conceivably access even more information with a few swipes on a touchscreen.

Americans should take steps to protect their digital privacy. But keeping sensitive information on these devices is increasingly a requirement of normal life. Citizens still have a right to expect private documents to remain private and protected by the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.

As so often is the case, stating that principle doesn’t ease the challenge of line-drawing. In many cases, it would not be overly onerous for authorities to obtain a warrant to search through phone contents. They could still trump Fourth Amendment protections when facing severe, exigent circumstances, such as the threat of immediate harm, and they could take reasonable measures to ensure that phone data are not erased or altered while a warrant is pending. The court, though, may want to allow room for police to cite situations where they are entitled to more leeway.

But the justices should not swallow California’s argument whole. New, disruptive technology sometimes demands novel applications of the Constitution’s protections. Orin Kerr, a law professor who blogs on The Post’s Volokh Conspiracy,comparesthe explosion and accessibility of digital information in the 21st century with the establishment of automobile use as a virtual necessity of life in the 20th: The justices had to specify novel rules for the new personal domain of the passenger car then; they must sort out how the Fourth Amendment applies to digital information now.

26. The Supreme court, will work out whether, during an arrest, it is legitimate to

[A] search for suspects’ mobile phones without a warrant.

[B] check suspects’ phone contents without being authorized.

[C] prevent suspects from deleting their phone contents.

[D] prohibit suspects from using their mobile phones.

27. The author’s attitude toward California’s argument is one of

[A] tolerance.

[B] indifference.

[C] disapproval.

[D] cautiousness.

28. The author believes that exploring one’s phone content is comparable to

[A] getting into one’s residence.

[B] handing one’s historical records.

[C] scanning one’s correspondences.

[D] going through one’s wallet.

29. In Paragraph 5 and 6, the author shows his concern that

[A] principles are hard to be clearly expressed.

[B] the court is giving police less room for action.

[C] phones are u