Read the following article and select the best answer. Article: Poetry, one of the essential art forms of literature, is a brief and easy way to express our feelings. Moreover, everyone understands it in their own way. Some find relief in poems; some read them simply for peace; some read poems for simple artistic pleasure. There are some special features of poetry, which make it quite different from other forms of literature. First of all, poems have rhythmic patterns. Generally most parts of a poem follow the same form of rhythm. Poems may have rhyme, but they don't have to. The lines are neatly arranged together so that they express a particular feeling or emotion. There can be various types of poems but according to the pattern or the form, there are mainly three types: Lyrics: The lyric mainly concentrates on human thoughts and emotions rather than a story. Lyrics always bear song-like appeal. These are mainly short poems. Popular lyric poem forms are the elegy, the ode and the sonnet. William Shakespeare, Edmund Waller and Keats are some of the greatest lyric writers of all times. Narrative poems: This type of poetry tells a story. Narrative poems are usually long poems. Epics and ballads fall under this type. Some of the greatest epic poets are John Milton, Dante, Edgar Allan Poe, Alexander Pope, William Shakespe are, etc.. Dramatic poems: Any drama that is written in verse is a dramatic poem. These poems generally tell a story. Black verse, dramatic monologue and closet drama belong to this type. William Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe and Ben Jonson are some of the greatest dramatic poets. Whatever the form is, one thing, which cannot be denied, is that poetry is one of the most powerful tools to express our feelings. Question: We can know from the text that _ . - poems are weak in showing feelings - some poets write more than one type of poem - narrative poems are shorter than lyric poems - the sonnet and the ballad belong to the same type
some poets write more than one type of poem

Read the following article and select the best answer. Article: It was a village in India.The people were poor.However,they were not unhappy.After all,their forefathers had lived in the same way for centuries. Then one day,some visitors from the city arrived.They told the villagers there were some people elsewhere who liked to eat frog's legs.However,they did not have enough frogs of their own,and so they wanted to buy frogs from other places. This seemed like money for nothing.There were millions of frogs in the fields around,and they were no use to the villagers.All they had to do was catch them.Agreement was reached,and the children were sent into the fields to catch frogs.Every week a truck arrived to collect the catch and hand over the money.For the first time,the people were able to dream of a better future.But the dream didn't last long. The change was hardly noticed at first,but it seemed as if the crops were not doing so well.More worrying was that the children fell ill more often,and,there seemed to be more insects around lately. The villagers decided that they couldn't just wait to see the crops failing and the children getting weak.They would have to use the money earned to buy pesticides and medicines.Soon there was no money left. Then the people realized what was happening.It was the frog.They hadn't been useless.They had been doing an important job--eating insects.Now with so many frogs killed,the insects were increasing more rapidly.They were damaging the crops and spreading diseases. Now,the people are still poor.But in the evenings they sit in the village square and listen to sounds of insects and frogs.These sounds of the night now have a much deeper meaning. (2010*,A) Question: What can we infer from the last sentence of the text? - Happiness comes from peaceful life in the country. - Health is more important than money. - The harmony between man and nature is important. - Good old days will never be forgotten.
The harmony between man and nature is important.

Q: Read the following article and select the best answer. Article: In the United States, when one becomes rich, he wants people to know it. And even if he does not become very rich, he wants people to think that he is. That is what "keeping up with the Joneses" is about. It is the story of someone who tried to look as rich as his neighbors. The expression was first used in 1913 by a young American called Arthur Momand. He told this story about himself. He began eaming $ 125 a week at the age of 23. That was a lot of money in those days.He got married and moved with his wife to a verywealthy neighborhood outside New York City. When he saw that rich people rode horses, Momand went horseback riding every day. When he saw that rich people had servants, Momand and his wife also hired a servant and gave big parties for their new neighbors. It was like a race, but one could never finish his race because one was always trying to keep up. The race ended for Momand and his wife when they could no longer pay for their new way of life. They moved back to an apartment in New York City. Momand looked around him and noticed that many people do things just to keep up with rich lifestyle of their neighbors. He saw the funny side of it and started to write a series of short stories. He called it " Keeping up with the Joneses" because "Jones" is a very common name in the United States. " Keeping up with the Joneses" came to mean keeping up with rich lifestyle of the people around you. Momand's series appeared in different newspapers across the country for over 28 years. People never seem to get tired of keeping up with the Joneses. And there are "Joneses" in every city of the world. But one must get tired of trying to keep up with the Joneses because no matter what one does, Mr. Jones always seems to be ahead. Question: According to the writer, it is _ to keep up with the Joneses. - correct - interesting - impossible - good
A: impossible

Read the following article and select the best answer. Article: Moral science is taught as a subject in most schools but with little effect. Perhaps part of the problem lies in the fact that morality is not a science, strictly speaking. It is too much of a social phenomenon, and also has too much of the personal and subjective things mixed within. Besides, morality itself changes with generations. So it is impossible to be defined in a textbook. I remember sitting through forty minutes of moral lessons, which told stories about little children who never told lies and were rewarded for their goodness. It had little effect and left no impression on me, though. If moral science has to be taught as a subject in schools, it needs a participatory approach. When you tell a child about morals, you also have to deal with social norms and cultural differences. You have to explain that morality can be subjective, and be able to co-exist in society. You will probably have to refer to the morals of the present time. The best way to tell a child how to live is to show him what is valued. If a child likes his friend, you have to make the child think about why. Once the child notices and recognizes goodness in others, he or she is likely to develop it as well. In fact, children learn most of their morals by watching people around them. They absorb behavior patterns from teachers and older students. They watch to see what is rewarded and who is punished. They learn on the sports field and through social work. Moral science lessons should simply consist of letting them live and interact, and watch you support correct values and reward good behavior. Question: Which is NOT the reason that moral science is taught in schools but with little effect? - Morality doesn't strictly belong to a science - Morality is more like a social phenomenon. - Different generations have different moral ideas. - Morality can't be written down in textbooks.
Morality can't be written down in textbooks.