Question: Article: For the first time, researchers have discovered that some plants can kill insects in order to get additional nutrients. New research shows that they catch and kill small insects with their own sticky hairs near the roots and then absorb nutrients through their roots when the insects are killed and fall to the ground. Professor Mark Chase, of Kew and Queen Mary, University of London, said: "The cultivated tomatoes and potatoes still have the hairs. Tomatoes in particular are covered with these sticky hairs. They do trap small insects on a regular basis. They do kill insects." The number of these carnivorous plants is thought to have came up to 50 percent and many of them have until now been wrongly regarded as among the most harmless plants. Among them are species of petunia , some special tobacco plants and cabbages, some varieties of potatoes and tomatoes, etc. Researchers at Royal Botanical Gardens Kew, which carried out the study, now believe there are hundreds more killer plants than previously realized. It is thought that the technique was developed in the wild to get necessary nutrients in poor quality soil - and even various plants grown in your vegetable garden still have the ability. The researchers, publishing their finding in the Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, said: "We may be surrounded by many more murderous plants than we think." "We are accustomed to thinking of plants as being immobile and harmless, and there is something deeply frightening about the thought of meat-eating plants," they added. Question: The insect-killing technique of vegetables is developed most probably through _ . Yes or no, is the answer "evolution of species"?
Answer: Yes

Question: Article: In the late 1500s, a large powerful gun was placed on top of the Signal Hill, in prefix = st1 /Newfoundland, to prevent attacks from the outside. Flags were also flown there to warn sailors of bad weather. It's fitting, then, the Italian Gulielmo Marconi should have chosen this site to receive the world's first radio signal -- in Morse code -- from England on December 12, 1901. Marconi, combining earlier ideas with his own, led us to a new communications age. For the next 50 years, until the appearance of television, radio ruled the air waves. Today, it's the TV that rules. No single person can say to have invented television. In 1884, the German Paul Nipkow invented a device that sent pictures mechanically , and in 1906, Boris Rosing, a Russian, used a ray and a disc to create the world's first TV system. Then in the early 1920s, another Russian, Vladimir Zworykin,invented a picture display tube. He took out a patent for color1 TV, even though it wouldn't be developed for another 25 years. In 1924, a Scot entered the scene -- John Logie Baird. He first succeeded in sending a moving picture and a year later got the first actual TV picture. In 1926, Baird showed TV in aLondonlaboratory. Two years later inNew York, Felix the Cat became the first TV star. TV excited everyone's imagination, but hardly anyone had a set, with just two thousand in use worldwide in the mid-1930s. Since the late 1940s, TV technology has developed very quickly. Computers may finally be combined with all televisions to give people a total all-in-one communications network. Today, it's possible to sit and watch TV in the middle of a forest or in the Arctic. It's surprising when one considers that Marconi was on Signal Hill in the same century. Question: We can learn from the text that Signal Hill was once used as _ . Yes or no, is the answer "a site of communication"?
Answer: No

Question: Article: With the development of society and economy, animals and their habitats are getting pushed aside as households decrease in size and increase in number. Small numbers of people per household on average use more energy and goods per person. Greater numbers of households require more natural resources for construction. The possible result of this problem may be _ natural resources to meet consumer demand without endangering habitats important to biodiversity. Personal freedom and social choice may come at huge environmental cost. Direct costs include visible damage to animal habitats and plant life. Indirect costs include the release of more greenhouse gases. The effects of such "personal freedom and social choice" have already surfaced in south-west China's Wolong Nature Reserve. In Wolong, they found that a reduced average household size was directly tied to an increase in homes, and thus an increase in the amount of firewood consumed for cooking and heating. The rise in wood fuel use has contributed to disappearance of forests and to the loss of habitats for giant pandas. Curious about whether other parts of the world were experiencing similar phenomena, they got the support of a team of researchers including Stanford's Paul Ehrlich, well-known for his population studies, to find out the household dynamics in 141 countries between 1985 and 2000. Their study proved that the difficult choice of Wolong is part of a global trend. In the 76 countries considered biodiversity "hotspots", such as the United States, Brazil, Australia, and Kenya, the number of households grew by 3.1% every year, while the population increased just 1.8%. Meanwhile, the number of people per home dropped from 4.7 to 4.0. The decline in household size has resulted in 155 million additional households in hotspot countries, almost always limiting biodiversity. In the 10 non-hotspot countries -- those without high-density areas of animal and plant species -- similar results were found, though on a lesser scale. Even in countries experiencing... Question: What does the passage mainly talk about? Yes or no, is the answer "Reduction in household size as well as increase in household number threatens nature."?
Answer:
No