Article: Making an advertisement for television often costs more than a movie. For example, a two - hour movie costs $6 million to make. A TV commercial can cost more than $6 000 a second. And that does not include cost of paying for air time. Which is more valuable, the program or the ad? In terms of money - and making money is what television is all about - the commercial is by far the more important. Research, market testing, talent, time and money ---- all come together to make us want to buy a product. No matter how bad we think a commercial is, it works. The sales of Charm went up once the ads began. TV commercials actually buy their way into our head. We, in turn, buy the product. And the ads work because so much time and attention are given to them. Here are some rules of commercial ad making. If you want to get the low middle - class buyer, make sure the announcer has a though, manly voice. Put some people in the ad who work with their hands. If you want to sell to upper - class audience, make sure that the house, the furniture, and the hair style are the types that the group identifies with. If you want the buyer feel superior to the character selling the product, then make that person so stupid or silly that everyone will feel great about himself or herself. We laugh at commercials. We don't think we pay that much attention to them. But evidence shows we are kidding ourselves. The making of a commercial that costs so much money is not kid stuff. It's big, big business. And it's telling us what to think , what we need, and what to buy. To put simply, the TV commercial is a form of brainwashing. Question: The purpose of all the efforts made in turning out TV commercials is _ .' Yes or no, is the answer "to persuade people to buy the product"?
No

(Question)
Article: A little under one-third of U.S. families have no Internet access and do not plan to get it, with most of the holdouts seeing little use for it in their lives, according to a survey released on Friday. Park Associates, a Dallas-based technology market research firm, said 29 percent of U.S. families, or 31 million homes, do not have Internet access and do not intend to subscribe to an Internet service over the next 12 months. The second annual National Technology Scan conducted by Park found that the main reason why potential customers say they do not subscribe to the Internet is because of the low value to their daily lives rather than concerns over cost. Forty-four percent of these families say they are not interested in anything on the Internet, versus just 22 percent who say they cannot afford a computer or the cost of Internet service, the survey showed. The answer "I'm not sure how to use the Internet" came from 17 percent of participants who do not subscribe. The response "I do all my e-commerce shopping and YouTube-watching at work" was cited by 14 percent of Internet-access refuseniks. Three percent said the Internet doesn't reach their homes. The study found U.S. broadband adoption grew to 52 percent over 2006, up from 42 percent in 2005. Roughly half of new subscribers converted from slower-speed, dial-up Internet access while the other half of families had no prior access. "The industry continues to chip away at the core of non-subscribers, but has a long way to go," said John Barrett, director of research at Parks Associates. "Entertainment applications will be the key. If anything will pull in the holdouts, it's going to be applications that make the Internet more similar to pay-TV," he predicted. Question: Which is the best title for the passage? Yes or no, is the answer "Many Americans see little point to web"?
(Answer)
No

Ques: Article: Soaring divorce rates around the globe are the environment, American researchers suggested in a study released on a Monday. Michigan State University researcher Jianguo "Jack" Liu and his assistant Eunice Yu said the increasing number of divorces leads to more households with fewer people and greater consumption of water and energy. They said housing units require space, construction materials and fuel to heat and cool, regardless of the number of inhabitants. For example, in the United States in 2005, divorced households consumed an extra 73 billion kilowatt hours of electricity and 627 billion gallons of water. An additional 38 million extra rooms required heating and lighting that same year due to divorced households. That costs $6.9 billion in extra utility costs per year, Liu said, plus an added $ 3.6 billion for water, in addition to other costs such as land use. "A married household actually uses resources more efficiently than a divorced household," Liu said. He said that in cohabitating household, people will watch the same television, share the air conditioning and heat and use the same refrigerator. All things use energy at a regularly stable rate, regardless of the number of users. Liu said he was not condemning divorce, "Some people really need to get divorced." He said cohabitation--whether by a family or friends--was simply a more environmentally friendly option. Additonally, the researchers noted that trends other than divorce are also changing family living structures, such as the end of multiple generations of a family sharing a home and people remaining single longer. "People's first reaction to this research is surprise, and then it seems simple." Liu said in a press release. "But a lot of things become simple after research is done. Our challenges were to connect the dots and quantify their relationships. People have been talking about how to protect the environment and fight against climate change, but divorce is a factor that people don't notice and it needs to be considered". He said... Question: We are told that _ . Yes or no, is the answer "divorce is rarely considered when people think about protecting the environment."?
Ans: No

(Q).
Article: 79 Mayfair Road Plumton, Kent October 10th Dear Rosemary, I was very glad to get your letter this morning. I really ought to have written to you---it was my turn, I know----but I have been terribly busy. The children seem to take up all my time. I am thinking of sending Ann to a nursery school. She'll be four next month. Baby has just started to walk and doesn't give me a moment's peace. But you know what it is like! How are all your children? I'm sure they love living in the country. I'm afraid we can't come over to see you next Sunday, as you suggest. Tom's mother is coming to spend the day with us. What about the Sunday after that----- the twenty-second? We are free that day and should love to come. We're longing to see your house. Let me know, then, if the Sunday after next suits you. May we come for lunch? We'd like to leave fairly early in the evening to avoid the heavy traffic on the roads. Love from us all, Edna Question: We can infer from the letter that Tom is _ . Yes or no, is the answer "Edna's husband"?
(A).
No

Ques: Article: Experiments aboard the spaceship Columbia have disproved a theory on the human nervous system which won an Austrian professor a Nobel prize 79 years ago. West German astronaut Ulf Merbold disproved the theory during tests aboard the spaceship yesterday. His discovery is connected with the workings of the inner ear, the body's balance mechanism . In l914 Professor Robert Barany won the Nobel prize for Physiology and Medicine when he announced that temperature differences affected the inner ear and caused the eyes to blink . His theory was accepted by scientists. But Merbold carried out tests to find if the theory was correct and shocked himself and space officials when he proved it wrong. According to Barany's theory the eyes would blink when cold air was blown into one ear and hot air blown into the other. But if this theory was correct such a movement would be impossible in zero gravity . Both Merbold's eyes continually blinked when the test was carried out. Question: Barany's theory declared to prove _ . Yes or no, is the answer "that eye movement is affected by temperature"?
Ans:
No