Question: Article: A campaign is being launched to encourage children to _ 30 minutes of screen time a day to head for the great outdoors. The newly formed Wild Network--a collaboration of nearly 400 organizations--is attempting to attract youngsters away from television and computer screen and to fields, woods and parks. Members of the network include the National Trust, RSPB, Play England and the NHS. Organizers say it is the UK's biggest ever campaign to reconnect children with nature and outdoor play, and claim it could help improve fitness, mental alertness and general wellbeing. A documentary film, Project Wild Thing, will forecast the launch at more than 50 cinemas across the UK from Friday. It looks at the increasing link between children and nature. Andy Simpson, chairman of the Wild Network, said, "The tragic truth is that kids have lost touch with nature and the outdoors in just one generation. Time spent outdoors is down, roaming ranges have fallen largely, activity levels are declining and the ability to identify common species has been lost." Suggestions of how to get more time in nature include collecting conkers , camping or snail racing, and observing autumn colour on trees. From January, the network will aim to make suggestions to politicians on how government can do more to get children muddy and bright-eyed. This is not the first time the message of less screen, more play has been brought up. Children in the 1980s were requested to do the same by the BBC TV series Why Don't You, which somewhat confusingly called on its viewers to "switch off your TV set and go to do something less boring instead". Question: Which of the following shows that kids have lost touch with nature and the outdoors? Yes or no, is the answer "Time spent outdoors is less and activity levels are down."?
Answer: No

Question: Article: When my parents were alive, they weren't well off financially. Yet they helped their two older daughters time after time. My sisters paid Mom and Dad back part of the time, but when Daddy passed away, his cash journal showed debts due from several of his children. I was not among them. I seldom borrowed money and when I did, at the beginning I set a repayment plan and stuck to it. It was a matter of pride for me. When you think that I was raised in the same household with my brothers and sisters and had the same parents, it is hard to figure out why I was the only one who couldn't stand to owe them -- or anyone -- money. Maybe it's because I watched my parents struggle to help my older sisters out when they were in financial difficulties themselves. Maybe it's because of that reason, I was just too proud to depend on anyone else. These days, I am the one of those other people turn to for help when they need it. Just as I can't stand to owe other people, I can't stand to say no to anyone who presents a credible case of need. So I am what is called an"enabler". Being an enabler is an insidious disorder. It starts simply enough when you help someone with an extraordinary expense created by an unusual event. Then when people find out you will provide aid, they ask you more and more and you -- being a nice person -- just keep giving. It's a hard cycle to break and I personally have no clue how to escape. I'm not angry. I'm not holding a grudge. I don't try to tell my children or my sisters how to run their lives because they ask me for money. Yet I would be so proud of all of them if they were to make more of an effort to handle things themselves, perhaps by doing some financial planning -- like planning not to spend money they don't have! And I don't see why they can't do this. After all, I'm not lassoing them and forcing them to take my money. I'm just not good at saying"no". So I ask you, what can I do when so many people around me have no shame in owing others money? On the other hand, I am doing them a... Question: The author will feel proud when . Yes or no, is the answer "she can pay back the money she owed"?
Answer: No

Question: Article: Our particular parenting style reflects our own way of "looking". Here's a great piece of writing reflecting parent's particular ways on the parenting style that have become known humorously as helicopter parenting and submarine parenting. Helicopter parents _ their children, managing every aspect of their child's life. On the contrary, submarine parents remain "hidden" coming to the surface when guidance is needed. While helicopter parents may have the best intentions, in reality, they are raising children with few problem solving skills. Children with hovering parents never get the chance to face disappointment and build up their ability to recover from misfortune. Think about your typical submarine. Submarines usually remain underwater. In case of a need for emergency surfacing, submarines can rise so quickly they are driven partially out of the water. Submarine parents also remain out of sight, yet able to pop up in the case of an emergency. I admit I'm a submarine mom. My job as a parent is to have fun with my daughters while letting them explore and learn natural consequences. My older daughter found herself acting in commercials and making more than minimum wage as a teen. To give her a sense of the real world, I insisted she spend three weeks every summer, picking strawberries and earning $3.50 on a good day. When my youngest daughter Sondra was six, she wanted a very expensive American Girl Doll. I cut the full color1 18-inch picture out of the American Girl catalogue and had it laminated . "Here's your American Girl Doll." I said "When you turn nine, I'll buy you the 3D doll on your birthday." Sondra played with her flat doll for months, making clothes and furniture for her. She learned creativity. I saved $88.00. Question: Which of the following is true of helicopter parents? Yes or no, is the answer "They try to do everything for their children."?
Answer:
No