user: "How should I give my children pocket money?" is one of the most common questions asked by parents. "Should kids receive pocket money when they get high marks at school, or lose pocket money if they don't help with the housework?" are also common questions.      Giving pocket money is an excellent way to develop children's independence. Children should receive pocket money as their small share of the family wealth, and they should share in doing the housework as well.      Here are some ideas to help you use pocket money to develop your children's independence.      Give pocket money regularly. Like adults, children should have a payday every week or two.      Link pocket money with ages and needs. Provide spending guidelines; don't be afraid to let them know what you expect them to buy, and what not to. A child in preschool and lower primary school is sure to spend money on candies and other such things. But older children can be expected to buy their own lunches or bus tickets.      Teach kids to set their goals. Encouraging children to save money for big things like bikes can help them learn about planning ahead.      When given wisely, pocket money is an excellent way to develop children's independence. But at some time, perhaps when a child turns fifteen, it needs to be reduced or eliminated in order to encourage the child to get a part-time job and begin to earn his own pocket money. When giving pocket money to children, parents should   _  . A) give them lots of money so that they can share the family wealth B) give it to them at regular times C) give every child the same amount D) let them spend it as they please
B

Diana Jacobs thought her family had a workable plan to pay for college for her 21-year-old twin sons: a combination of savings, income, scholarships, and a modest amount of borrowing. Then her husband lost his job, and the plan fell apart. "I have two kids in college, and I want to say 'come home', but at the same time I want to provide them with a good education." says Jacobs. The Jacobs family did work out a solution. They asked and received more aid from the schools, and each son increased his borrowing to the maximum amount through the federal loan   program. They will each graduate with $20,000 of debt, but at least they will be able to finish school. With unemployment rising, financial aid administrators expect to hear more families like the Jacobs. More students are applying for aid, and more families expect to need student loans. College administrators are concerned that they will not have enough aid money to go around. At the same time, tuition continues to rise. A report from the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education found that college tuition and fees increased 439% from 1982 to 2007, while average family income rose just 147%. Student borrowing has more than doubled in the last decade. "If we go on this way for another 25 years, we won't have an affordable system of higher education," says Patrick M. Callan, president of the center. "The middle class families have been financing it through debt. They will send kids to college whatever it takes, even if that means a huge amount of debt." Financial aid administrators have been having a hard time as many companies decide that student loans are not profitable enough and have stopped making them. The good news, however, is that federal loans account for about three quarters of student borrowing, and the government says that money will flow uninterrupted. How did the Jacobs manage to solve their problem? A) They asked their kids to come home. B) They borrowed $20,000 from the school. C) They encouraged their twin sons to do part-time jobs. D) They got help from the school and the federal government.
D

Health officials issued a waring over common energy-saving lghtbulbs  after research showed some types could potentially harm the skin and may even raise the risk of cancer. A study by the Health Protection Agency (HPA) found that some eco-friendly lightbuulbs release levels of ultraviolet (UV)   radiation that are above recognized safety limits. The agency urged people who work with lamps nearby to avoid spending more than one hour within a foot of the eco-friendly bulbs. The warning was directed at those using desk lamps for long periods, such as jewellery makers, and others who might have lights close to their faces, such as car mechanics. John O'Hagan, a scientist at the HPA's centre for radiation, chemical and environmental dangers, began tests on the ligthbulbs after patient groups raised concern about them. Among the groups were patients with a skin disease called lupus, which makes people highly sensitive to light. The tests measured UV light from the lamps and found the highest levels of UV radiation, measured 2cm from the lightbulbs, were _ to being outside in direct sunlight in the summer. The most immediate risk from the lightbulbs is a reddening of the skin similar to sunburn, but there is also a small increased risk of skin cancer associated with this, again similar to that of sunburn. The risk of health problems from the lightbulbs was not so high that people should remove them from their homes. People are advised to avoid using open lightbulbs for long close work until the problem is sorted out. It has confirmed that the government will not be reviewing its strategy on introducing energy efficient lightbulbs. In the next part, the author would most probably further explain   _  . A) why people needn't remove the lightbulbs from their homes B) how researchers have planned to sort out the problem C) how the government has responded to HPA's discovery D) how long people should work close to the open lightbulbs


assistant: C