Article: Many children first learn the value of money by receiving an allowance. The purpose is to let children learn from experience at an age when financial mistakes are not very costly. The amount of money that parents give to their children to spend as they wish differs from family to family. Timing is another consideration. Some children get a weekly allowance. Others get a monthly allowance. In any case, parents should make clear what, if anything, the child is expected to pay for with the money. At first, young children may spend all of their allowance soon after they receive it. If they do this, they will learn the hard way that spending must be done within a budget. Parents are usually advised not to offer more money until the next allowance. The object is to show young people that a budget demands choices between spending and saving. Older children may be responsible enough to save money for larger costs, like clothing or electronics. Allowances give children a chance to experience the things they can do with money. They can share it in the form of gifts or giving to a good cause. They can spend it by buying things they want. Or they can save and maybe even invest it. Saving helps children understand that costly goals require sacrifice: you have to cut costs and plan for the future. Requiring children to save part of their allowance can also open the door to future saving and investing. Many banks offer services to help children and teenagers learn about personal finance. A savings account is an excellent way to learn about the power of compound interest . That may not seem like a lot. But over time it adds up. Question: The author intends to _ . Yes or no, is the answer "make parents aware of the children's allowances"?
No

Article: It is widely known that any English conversation begins with The Weather. Such a fixation with the weather finds expression in Dr. Johnson's famous comment that "When two English meet, their first talk is of weather." Though Johnson's observation is as accurate now as it was over two hundred years ago, most commentators fail to come up with a convincing explanation for this English weather-speak. Bill Bryson, for example, concludes that, as the English weather is not at all exciting, the _ with it can hardly be understood. He argues that "To an outsider, the most striking thing about the English weather is that there is not very much of it." Simply, the reason is that the unusual and unpredictable weather is almost unknown in the British Isles. Jeremy Paxman, however, disagrees with Bryson, arguing that the English weather is by nature attractive. Bryson is wrong, he says, because the English preference for the weather has nothing to do with the natural phenomena. "The interest is less in the phenomena themselves, but in uncertainty." According to him, the weather in England is very changeable and uncertain and it attracts the English as well as the outsider. Bryson and Paxman stand for common misconceptions about the weather-speak among the English. Both commentators, somehow, are missing the point. The English weather conversation is not really about the weather at all. English weather-speak is a system of signs, which is developed to help the speakers overcome the natural reserve and actually talk to each other. Everyone knows conversations starting with weather-speak are not requests for weather data. Rather, they are routine greetings, conversation starters or the blank "fillers". In other words, English weather-speak is a means of social bonding. Question: What is the author's purpose of writing the passage? Yes or no, is the answer "To explain what English weather-speak is about."?
No

Article: Ship tourism to Antarctica is on the rise: More than 35,000 tourists are expected to visit Antarctic this summer. In 1992-1993, 6,750 visited Antarctica, according to the Antarctica Treaty. All of this tourism, however, is putting both tourists and the environment in great danger. Among the tourist ships that visit the continent, the Explorer, a Canadian ship, was one of the first. Put to use in 1969, it was built to carry tourists to Antarctica. Last week, however, it became the first commercial passenger ship to sink beneath the waters. Fortunately, all of the passengers and crew members were rescued from the ship. However, the sunken ship endangered the Antarctic's fragile environment. The ship was estimated to be holding 48,000 gallons of fuel. The accident was not unexpected. Both the US and UK had warned a conference of the Antarctic Treaty member countries in May that the tourism situation in this area was a potential disaster. The US said in a paper, people "should take a hard look at tourism issues now, especially those related to ship safety." Although the Antarctic seas are relatively calm, floating ice causes a potential threat to ships. The owner of the Explorer blamed the sinking on a fist-like hole in the ship created by ice. Many of the other large ships now visiting Antarctica are not designed especially against thick ice. Such ships generally can only come to the continent in summer. But the tourist rush is pushing ships into dangerous situations. "The increasing number of ships operating in Antarctic means that the ship are under great pressure to get there in time for the key visiting sites," the British government wrote in a paper at the meeting of member countries. As a natural frontier, Antarctica is in a messy legal situation. There are no obvious answers as to who is responsible for dealing with the threat that tourist may cause to human life and the environment. There is no coast guard for Antarctica. Do we want it to become Disneyland, or do we need some controls? Question: In this passage, the writer suggests that _ . Yes or no, is the answer "there should be legal controls over tourism in the Antarctic"?
Yes