Article: A study of a million UK women, published today in The Lancet, has shown that happiness itself has no direct effect on mortality, and that the widespread but mistaken belief that unhappiness and stress directly cause ill health came from studies that had simply confused cause and effect. Life-threatening poor health can cause unhappiness, and for this reason unhappiness is associated with increased mortality. In addition, smokers tend to be unhappier than non-smokers. However, after taking account of previous ill health, smoking, and other lifestyle and socio-economic factors, the investigators found that unhappiness itself was no longer associated with increased mortality. The lead author, Dr Bette Liu, now at the University of New South Wales, Australia said: "Illness makes you unhappy, but unhappiness itself doesn't make you ill. We found no direct effect of unhappiness or stress on mortality, even in a ten-year study of a million women." As in other studies, unhappiness was associated with deprivation, smoking, lack of exercise, and not living with a partner. The strongest associations, however, were that the women who were already in poor health tended to say that they were unhappy, stressed, not in control, and not relaxed. The main analyses included 700 000 women, average age 59 years, and over the next 10 years these women were followed by electronic record linkage for mortality, during which time 30 000 of the women died. After allowing for any differences already present in health and lifestyle, the overall death rate among those who were unhappy was the same as the death rate among those who were generally happy. The study is so large that it rules out unhappiness being a direct cause of any material increase in overall mortality in women. This was true for overall mortality, for cancer mortality, and for heart disease mortality, and it was true for stress as well as for unhappiness. Question: The word "mortality" in the passage means . Yes or no, is the answer "relaxation"?
No

Article: Throughout history, people have been interested in knowing how languages first began, but no one knows exactly where or how this happened. However, we do know a lot about languages, the languages of today and also the languages of earlier times. There are probably about 3,000 languages in the world today. Chinese is the language with the most speakers. English, Russian and Spanish are also spoken by many millions of people. On the other hand, some languages in the world have less than one hundred speakers. There are several important families of languages in the world. For example, most of the languages of Europe are in one large family called Indo-European. The original language of this family was spoken about 4,500 years ago. Many of the present day languages of Europe and India are modern forms of the language of 4,500 yeas ago. Languages are always changing. The English of today is very different from the English of 500 years ago. In time some even died out completely. About 1,000 years ago, English was a little-known relative of German spoken on one of the borders of Europe. If a language has a large number of speakers or if it is very old, there may be differences in the way it is spoken in different areas. That is, the language may have several dialects. Chinese is a good example of _ differences. Chinese has been spoken for thousands of years by many millions of speakers. The differences between the dialects of Chinese are so great that speakers of Chinese from some parts of China can't understand speakers from other parts. Question: According to the passage, _ has the most speakers. Yes or no, is the answer "Chinese"?
No

Q: Article: "When I look back on my childhood I wonder how I survived at all. It was, of course, a miserable childhood. The happy childhood is hardly worth your while. "Worse than the ordinary miserable childhood is the miserable Irish childhood. And worse yet is the miserable Irish Catholic childhood." That was Frank McCourt reading the opening lines of his book Angela's Ashes, released in nineteen ninety-six. This Irish American author best known for the Pulitzer Prize-winning autobiography Angela's Ashes that recorded his poor upbringing, died of cancer on Sunday, The New York Times reported. He was 78. Born in New York City, he was the eldest of seven children born to Irish immigrant parents. Angela's Ashes was a memoir that captured an irresponsible, drunkard father with a gift for story-telling. When not drunk, his father was absent, turning his back on a family so poor, McCourt wrote, that they were reduced to burning the furniture in their rented hut to keep warm. His mother struggled to raise her many children after his father left the family. Already struggling when the Great Depression hit, the family moved back to Limerick, where they slipped ever deeper into poverty in the 1930s. Three of McCourt's siblings died of diseases worsened by hunger and the wretchedness of their surroundings. McCourt himself almost died of typhoid fever as a child. In Angela's Ashes, he wrote of hunger, a home flooded with rainwater and the unbearable humiliation of seeking handouts from charities in the Irish city. But he told the story in a way that is expressive, warm and light-hearted. Frank McCourt left Ireland at the age of nineteen to return to New York City where he was born. He earned a degree in- English education and taught creative writing for nearly thirty years. After retiring in nineteen eighty-seven, he decided to write about his childhood. "Angela's Ashes" became a huge success and brought McCourt a 1997 Pulitzer Prize, the National Book Critics Circle Award and other honors. Millions of copies of the book were... Question: From the passage, we know Frank McCourt's father is_. Yes or no, is the answer "irresponsible but gifted in telling stories"?
A: No

Article: There once was a king who offered a prize to the artist who would paint the best picture of peace. Many artists tried. The king looked at all the pictures, but there were only two he really liked and he had to choose between them. One picture was of a calm lake. The lake was a perfect mirror, for peaceful towering mountains were all around it. Over head was a blue sky with white clouds. All who saw this picture thought it was a perfect picture of peace. The other picture has mountains too. But these were rough and bare. Above was an angry sky from which rain fell and in which lightening played. Down the side of mountain ran a waterfall. This did not look peaceful at all. But when the king looked, he saw behind the waterfall a tiny bush growing in a _ in the rock. In the bush a mother bird had built her nest. There, in the midst of the rush of angry water, sat the mother bird on her nest... perfect peace. Which picture do you think won prize? The king chose the second picture. Do you know why? " Because ," explained the king, " peace does not mean to be in a place where there is no noise, trouble, or hard work. Peace means to be in the midst of all those things and still be calm in your heart. That is the real meaning of peace. Question: Why did the second picture win over the other? Yes or no, is the answer "Because the artist created a peaceful place set in the rough situation."?
No