Article: Polluted airborne particles kill 7 million people a year, reports the World Health Organization. That news may not come as a surprise to anyone who has seen images of chimneys in Beijing, Delhi or Mexico. But those factories-or even the jammed roadways of modern cities-are not the biggest killer. Each year, some 4.3 million people die earlier than they should because of polluted air inside their homes, says the WHO. What's causing the air inside people's homes to be so poisonous that it kills around 11,000 people a day? Stoves. "Having an open fire in your kitchen is like burning 400 cigarettes an hour." says Kirk Smith, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, whose research suggests that household air pollution from cooking killed between 3.5 million and 4 million people in 2013. Not all stoves cause this kind of harm. The ones Smith's talking about are those that the 3 billion people in the developing world use for heat and cooking, which burn solid fuels such as wood, coal, or crop waste instead of gas. The smoke from those fires produces harmful fine particles and carbon monoxide into homes. Poor _ then prevents that smoke from escaping, raising fine particle levels 100 times higher than the limits that the WHO considers acceptable. Breathing this air day in day out eventually causes a lot of diseases: more than a third of the 4.3 million die of a stroke, while a quarter die of heart disease. And around one-third of annual lung disease deaths worldwide are due to waste from coal stoves. Exposure tends to be extremely harmful for the people who spend the most time around the fire-usually women and young children. In fact, the WHO reports that household air pollution almost doubles the risk for childhood lung disease. Question: According to Kirk Smith's research, _ . Yes or no, is the answer "household air pollution from cooking is surprisingly harmful"?
No

Article: We're all connected. You can send an e-mail message to a friend, and your friend can pass it on to one of his or her friends, and that friend can do the same, continuing the chain. Eventually, your message could reach just about anyone in the world, and it might take only five to seven e-mails for the message to get there. Scientists recently tested that idea in a study involving 24,000 people. Participants had to try to get a message forwarded to one of 18 randomly chosen people. Each participant started by sending one e-mail to someone they knew. Recipients could then forward the e-mail once to someone they knew, and so on. Targets, who were randomly assigned by researchers from Columbia University in New York, lived in 13 countries. They included an Australian police officer, a Norwegian veterinarian, and a college professor. Out of 24,000 chains, only 384 reached their goal. The rest petered out, usually because one of the recipients was either too busy to forward the message or thought it was junk mail. The links that reached their goal made it in an average of 4.05 e-mails. Based on the lengths of the failed chains, the researchers estimated that two strangers could generally make contact in five to seven e-mails. The most successful chains relied on casual acquaintances rather than close friends. That's because your close friends know each other whereas your acquaintances tend to know people you don't know. The phenomenon, known as the strength of weak ties, explains why people tend to get jobs through people they know casually but aren't that close to. So, start networking and instant messaging now. As they say in show business: It's all about who you know. Question: If you want to get into touch with a stranger in the world, how many e-mails might it take for the message to reach him/her? Yes or no, is the answer "5 to 7"?
No

Q: Article: Ever wonder how this season's celebrations affect the environment? Guest blogger Krista Fairles takes an amusing look at this very topic: The holidays are a wonderful, cheerful time when most people wait for Santa to bring them presents. But I'm not like most people. I spend my time wondering just what the environmental impacts of Santa Claus and his reindeer are, and more importantly, how I can calculate those impacts. Lately I've been particularly curious as to whether Santa's old sled is a clean green flying machine, or if he should be replacing his 8 reindeer with an environmentally-friendly car. I should mention that, surprisingly, I was unable to find statistics specific to Santa's magical flying reindeer, so these calculations use numbers from various sources and may not represent actual pollution caused by Santa and his animals. In other words, don't complain to the government about the damage Santa is causing the environment based on this article. Santa's yearly trip around the globe is 44,000km long, twice the average of a North American driver. If we assume that the magic provides the altitude for this trip, then reindeer power only needs to push Santa's sled forward. To complete the trip in 12 hours, I estimate they must travel at a speed of about 3100km/h. To travel at this speed, for this length of time, the reindeer need to eat an incredible 980 million calories each!! So the next question is: how much food is in 980 million calories? Well, if they're eating corn, they'd need to eat 16,500 lbs each -- or 1.6 acres of food. Growing 12.8 acres of corn has its own implications for the environment that we'll leave for another calculation. We now need to consider that during the global trip the reindeer are "letting out" some of that corn in the form of methane (,). A resting cow produces 110 kg of methane per year, so flying reindeer would each let out about 4.8 tons. With methane causing 20 times the global warming damage of CO2, and the altitude increasing that damage by 1000% that another 20... Question: Which of the following statements would the writer most probably agree with? Yes or no, is the answer "Raising animals has a negative influence on environment."?
A: No

*Question*
Article: As the first woman Chancellor in German's history, Angela Merkel topped magazine's list of "The World's 100 Most Powerful Women" in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.She has even been compared to Margaret Thatcher and many people called her "Iron Lady". Merkel was born in Hamburg, West Germany, on July 17, 1954.Six weeks after she was born, her family moved to Templin. As a small child, Merkel quickly learned to speak but took longer to walk. "I was a stupid person when it came to moving?" Merkel said. "A normal person could do something naturally, but I had to think about it in my mind and practice." As a teenager, she was the top student and graduated from high school with perfect marks. In 1973, Merkel went to the University of Leipzig, where she studied physics. At 32, she got her doctor's degree in physics. She _ _ in 1989.In her first big political job as Minister for the Environment in 1994, her scientific background and strong will proved very useful. In 2005 she became Germany's Chancellor. She has been reelected to a second term as German Chancellor on September 27, 2009. Through her political career, Merkel's persistence and patience helped her a lot. "She's bright and openminded," said Hubert Markl. "She is the person who wants to know exactly what is going on, and how never giving up will influence our society and future." Question: What's the author's attitude toward Angela Merkel? Yes or no, is the answer "Admiring."?
**Answer**
No