Article: It is said that there's no such thing as a free lunch, but even if you manage to bag a bargain meal, it will not taste as good as a more expensive choice, according to scientists. A new study has found that restaurant goers who pay more for their meals think the food is tastier than offered for a smaller price. The experts think that people tend to associate cost with quality and this changes their perception of how food tastes. Scientists at Cornell University studied the eating habits of 139 people enjoying an Italian buffet in a restaurant. The price of the food was set by the researchers at either $4 or $8 for the all-you-can-eat meal. Customers were asked to rate how good the food tasted, the quality of the restaurant and to leave their names. The experiment showed that the people who paid $8 enjoyed their meal 11% more than those who ate the "cheaper" buffet. Interestingly those that paid for the $4 buffet said they felt guiltier about loading up their plates and felt that they overate. However, the scientists said that both groups ate around the same quantity of food in total. Brian Wansink, a professor of consumer behavior at the university, said: "We were fascinated to find that pricing has little effect on how much one eats, but a huge effect on how you interpret the experience." He thinks that people enjoyed their food more as they associated cost with quality and that small changes to a restaurant can change how tasty people find their meals. In a previous study, researchers from the university showed that people who eat in bright lighting consume more than people who eat in less brightly lit areas. Question: We can learn from the passage that _ . Yes or no, is the answer "there were 139 subjects involved in the new study"?
No

Article: Our children and grandchildren may not have a chance to visit many of the most famous places around the world. War, weather, age, traffic and pollution damage these famous places. Looking after these places often costs more than one country can afford. In the early 1970s, world governments decided that if they joined together, they would be able to preserve our history. If every country paid some money, they said, it would be possible to look after important historic places. Also, if they discovered that a monument needed urgent help, they would have money for repairs. For these reasons, countries around the world united to form the World Heritage Organization in 1972. Today, the organization helps to maintain and restore the most important places from our history. However, one of the biggest problems for historic places is vandalism. People sometimes enter the sites and destroy or damage the buildings. At some sites, such as Stonehenge in England, governments have built high fences to protect the site from vandals. There are many different ideas about how to solve the problem of vandalism. Some experts say that if guards patrolled the sites, vandals would not be able to get in. Some experts say that if they fixed more television cameras, they would not need so many guards. Other experts say that the best solution is education. If people learned to respect history, they would not destroy or damage it. They would also want to spend money looking after old places. For this reason, the World Heritage Organization helps to spread information about the value of historic sites. Question: Why did countries all over the world unite to form the World Heritage Organization? Yes or no, is the answer "All of the above."?
Yes

Q: Article: Blameless I was a freshman in college when I met the Whites. They were completely different from my own family, yet I felt at home with them immediately. Jane White and I became friends at school, and her family welcomed me like a long-lost cousin. In my family, it was always important to place blame when anything bad happened. "Who did this? "my mother would scream about a dirty kitchen. "This is all your fault, Katharine, "my father would insist when the cat got out or the dishwasher broke. From the time we were little, my sister, brothers and I told on each other. We set a place for blame at the dinner table. But the Whites didn't worry about who had done what. They picked up the pieces and moved on with their lives. The beauty of this was driven home to me the summer Jane died. In July, the White sisters and I decided to take a car trip from their home in Florida to New York. The two older sisters, Sarah and Jane, were college students, and the youngest, Amy, had recently turned sixteen. Proud of having a new driver's license ,Amy was excited about practicing her driving on the trip. She showed off her license to everyone she met. The big sisters shared the driving of Sarah's new car during the first part of the trip, but when they reached less crowded areas, they let Amy take over. Somewhere in South Carolina, we pulled off the highway to eat. After lunch, Amy got behind the wheel. She came to a crossroads with a stop sign. Whether she was nervous or just didn't see the sign no one would ever know, but Amy continued into the crossroads without stopping. The driver of a large truck, unable to stop in time, ran into our car. Jane was killed immediately. I was slightly injured. The most difficult thing that I've ever done was to call the Whites to tell them about the accident and that Jane had died. Painful as it was for me to lose a good friend, I knew that it was far worse for them to lose a child. When Mr. and Mrs. White arrived at the hospital, they found their two daughters sharing a room. Sarah had a... Question: From the passage we can learn that _ . Yes or no, is the answer "Amy has lived quite a normal life"?
A: No

Question: Article: If you really want to go green, here's good news: eating green is good for you. The very foods with a high carbon cost---meat, pork, dairy products, processed snacks---also tend to be filled with fat and calories. A green diet would be mostly vegetables and fruits, whole grains, fish and lean meats like chicken---a diet that's eco- and waistline-friendly. Eating green can be healthier and beneficial to the climate. It may be hard to believe that a meal at McDonald's produces more carbon than your trip to a far away place. More than 37% of the world's land is used for agriculture, much of which was once forested. Deforestation is a major source of carbon. The fertilizer and machinery needed on a modern farm also have a large carbon footprint, as does the network of ships and trucks that brings the food from the farm to your plate. The most efficient way to reduce the carbon footprint of your menu is to eat less meat, especially beef. Raising cattle takes a lot more energy than growing the equivalent amount of grains, fruits or vegetables. What's more, the majority of cattle in the U.S. are fed on grain and loads of it---670 million tons in 2002---and the fertilizer used to feed that creates separate environmental problems. Focus on eating lower on the food chain, with more plants and fruits and less meat and dairy. It's simple. We can change today what goes into our bodies for the health of our planet and ourselves. Question: According to the passage, eating green will _ . Yes or no, is the answer "be good for our health and make a change for the climate"?
Answer: No

(Q).
Article: It helps us understand the world better if we know a little geography and have some maps at hand. But with maps in Chinese only, misunderstanding is possible in studying world events. Chinese names are long, hard to pronounce and without meaning to a foreigner. For the opening of the country maps are important and helpful and needed badly. I wish maps various languages, such as those used in the United Nations, would come out and be sold in all bookstores open to Chinese. Question: Knowing a little geography and having some maps in Chinese only, a foreigner _ . Yes or no, is the answer "can't study world events without misunderstanding"?
(A).
No