Article: When you are talking to somebody at a party, do you focus entirely on the person you are speaking with or does your attention keep jumping around the room to all the other people there? General1y, if the person is someone you really want to talk to, you will focus on him. Most other people will only get about half of your attention. You may think that this is OK, because if you don't really want to talk to him, then what does it matter if you don't give him your full attention? Consider two things. First, you may just not realize the importance of that conversation. If you are at a networking meeting and you hope to meet the CEO of Company X, but you end up talking to someone who has a low-level job at a different company, then you may let your attention wander as you speak to him. But maybe you don't realize that this person has already met the CEO and could introduce you. Do you think he will do that if he feels you don't really care about speaking to him? This doesn't mean you need to spend the whole time talking to him. Five or ten minutes of real attentive conversation can be worth 30 minutes to an hour of partial attention. Second, whether you want to speak to someone is based on the situation. You can love your wife, but if she tries to talk to you while you are watching something you like on TV, where is your attention going? Make your own decision, but if you want her to feel valued, give her your 100% attention. The nice thing is that in many cases you can give her your attention for a few minutes and then return to what you were doing. You miss very little, she feels valued, and all is good. Question: If your wife wants to talk to you when you are busy, you should _ . Yes or no, is the answer "decide what to do according to the situation"?
No

Article: In Europe, people hold the fork in the left hand and the knife in the right throughout the meal, a system that is generally agreed to be more efficient than the American zigzag method. Americans hold both the fork and the knife in their right hands throughout the meal, so they continually change their forks to the left hand when they have to cut their meat. It seems to be funny for the Europeans to see Americans busy changing their dinner sets, making a lot of noises. A few explanations for this American style are as follows: (1) Americans are practical and efficient. Since most of us are right-handed, it is reasonable to keep our working tools at all times in the right hand that can use them most efficiently. (2) Americans, the master of the New World are rebels .They use the zigzag method to break the rules in the Old World and in this way they are thumbing their nose at Mother England. Americans are a restless kind. They do not like to sit in one spot for very long when dining. (3) Forced to do so, they respond by "playing" with the silver. Whatever the reason for the practice, it is now certainly as American as apple pie. Europeans recognize this and are quick to attack it as evidence of American innocence of form. Arguments against the zigzag method rest not only on grounds of efficiency but also on those of tradition. In Old World dining, the knife is held in the right hand continually because it can serve as an instant defense against the uninvited intruders .However, such alertness is out of place in the New World, as every American believes that this is the home of the brave. Americans _ their silverware, perhaps, to show that they are not afraid and that one of them holding a fork is worth any number of them holding blades . Question: Which of the following statements is NOT true? Yes or no, is the answer "European people will use the American method because of its efficiency."?
No

Article: She had been shopping with her Mom in Wal-Mart. She must have been 6 years old, this beautiful brown haired, freckle-faced image of innocence. It was pouring outside. We all stood there under the awning and just inside the door of the Wal-Mart. We all waited, some patiently, others irritated, because nature messed up their hurried day. I am always memorized by rainfall. I get lost in the sound and sight of the heavens washing away the dirt and dust of the world. Memories of running, splashing so carefree as a child come pouring in as a welcome reprieve from the worries of my day. Her voice was so sweet as it broke the trance we were all caught in, "Mom, let's run through the rain." she said. "What?" Mom asked. "Let's run through the rain!" She repeated. "No, honey. We'll wait until it slows down a bit." Mom replied. This young child waited about another minute and repeated: "Mom, let's run through the rain." "We'll get soaked if we do." Mom said. "No, we won't, Mom. That's not what you said this morning," the young girl said as she pulled her Mom's arm." "This morning? When did I say we could run through the rain and not get wet?" "Don't you remember? When you were talking to Daddy about his cancer, you said, if God can get us through this, he can get us through anything!" _ No one came or left in the next few minutes. Mom paused and thought for a moment about what she would say. Now some would laugh it off and scold her for being silly. Some might even ignore what was said. But this was a moment of affirmation in a young child's lifetime when innocent trust can be nurtured so that it will bloom into faith. "Honey, you are absolutely right. Let's run through the rain. If get wet, well maybe we just need washing." Mom said. Then off they ran. We all stood watching, smiling and laughing as they ran past the cars . They held their shopping bags over their heads just in case. They got soaked but they were followed by a few who screamed and laughed like children all the way to their cars. And yes, I did. I... Question: What attitude of the Mom towards her daughter's suggestion at first? Yes or no, is the answer "Negative"?
No

Article: Man has always wanted to fly. Some of the greatest men in history have thought about the problem. One of these, for example, was the great Italian artist, Leonardo da Vinci. In the sixteenth century he made designs for machines that could fly. But they were never built., Throughout history, other less famous men have wanted to fly. An example was a man in England 800years ago. He made a pair of wings from chicken feathers. Then he fixed them to his body and jumped into the air from a tall building. He did not fly very far. He fell to the ground and broke every bone in his body. The first real step took place in France in 1783. Two brothers, the Mongolfiers, made a very large "hot air balloon". They knew that hot air rises. Why not fill a balloon with it? The balloon was made of cloth and paper. In September of that year, the King and Queen of France came to see the balloon. They watched it carry the very first air passengers into the sky. The passengers were a sheep and a chicken. We do not know how they felt about the trip. But we do know that the trip lasted 8 minutes and that the animals landed safely. Two months later, two men did the same thing. They rose above Paris in a balloon of the same kind. Their trip lasted twenty-five minutes and they traveled about 8 kilometers. Question: Eight hundred years ago an Englishman _ . Yes or no, is the answer "tried to fly with wings made of chicken feathers"?
Yes