In this task, you're given an article, a question which often contains a blank, four options (associated with "A", "B", "C", "D") and the answer to that question. Your task is to classify whether the given answer is correct or not by providing "Yes" or "No", based on the article.

Q: Article: The word I'm going to introduce to you today is-phubbing. Let's see the definition of this term:phubbing n. the act of snubbing someone in a social setting by looking at your cell phone instead of paying attention As you can probably guess, phubbing is a blend of phone and snubbing. The term was coined by a 23-year-old Melbourne resident Alex Haigh. Obviously, he got fed up with how people are always checking Facebook or Twitter on their phones when they are supposed to be interacting with someone face to face. He wanted to put an end to this social phenomenon, therefore he came up with this catchy term. And it did catch on. The word's earliest media mention dates back to June 2012, and in a little over a year's time, phubbing has already been picked up by almost all the mainstream media outlets one can think of. Here is a typical example from the British newspaper The Independent. In the article titled The Rise of Phubbing, which was published on August 5, 2013, Tom Chatfield writes, there's an uncomfortable truth at the heart of phubbing: other people are easier to handle when seen on screen. They're less likely to demand unreasonable efforts such as undivided attention or clean shirts. While the term phubbing has undoubtedly taken off, some people question why it is called phubbing instead of phnubbing. Alex Haigh has not personally addressed the issue, but word has it that phubbing sounds more crispy and thus easier to remember. Phubbing is indeed a univers al problem that can no longer be ignored. So why do people keep phubbing each other if they know it's rude? Is there anything we can do to stop it? Or maybe we should just be more kind, because sometimes there are good excuses to phub. I think there is plenty we can do to try and stop phubbing. For starters, we can jo in Alex Haigh in his Stop Phubbing campaign. Remind our friends and family that phubbing is not appreciated. We can also make or download some anti-phubbing posters to spread the word in public places. And don't forget that some phubbers simply do not realize the harmful effect their behavior has on others,so be b rave enough to stop them, even if you are a total stranger.
Question: This passage is mainly talking about _ .
Options: (A) the rise of phubbing in all the mainstream media outlets (B) a new term "phubbing"and its problem (C) the campaign of keeping phubbing (D) different opinions on phubbing
Asnwer: B

A: Yes
****
Q: Article: Speed-reading is a necessary skill in the Internet age.We skim over articles, e-mails and WeChat to try to grasp key words and the essential meaning of a certain text.Surrounded with information from our electronic devices, it would be impossible to cope if we read word by word, line by line.But a new trend calls on people to unplug and enjoy reading slowly, listing benefits beyond the intelligent stimulation. A recent story from The Wall Street Journal reported on a book club in Wellington, New Zealand, where members meet in a cafe and turn off their smartphones.They sink into cozy chairs and read in silence for an hour. Unlike traditional book clubs, the point of the slow reading club isn't exchanging ideas about a certain book, but to get away from electronic devices and read in a quiet, relaxed environment. According to the Journal, the Wellington book club is just one example of a movement started by book lovers who miss the old-fashioned way of reading before the Internet and smartphones. Slow readers, such as The Atlantic's Maura Kelly, say a regular reading habit sharpens the mind, improves concentration, reduces stress levels and deepens the ability to sympathize. Another study published last year in Science showed that reading novels helps people understand other's mental states and beliefs, a fundamental skill in building relationships. Yet technology has made us less attentive readers. Screens have changed our reading patterns from the straight and information.left-to-right sequence to a wild skimming and skipping pattern as we hunt for important words and information. Reading text punctuated with links leads to weaker comprehension than reading plain text. The Internet may have made us stupider, says Patrick Kingsley from The Guardian. Because of the Internet, he says, we have become very good at collecting a wide range of interesting news, but we are also gradually forgetting how to sit back, reflect, and relate all these facts to each other. Slow reading means a return to an uninterrupted, straight pattern, in a quiet environment free of distractions. Aim for 30 minutes a day, advises Kelly from The Atlantic. "You can squeeze in that half hour pretty easily if only during your free moments, you pick up a meaningful work of literature," Kelly said. "Reach for your e-reader, if you like. Kindles make books like War and Peace less heavy, not less substantive, and also ensure you'll never lose your place."
Question: According to Patrick Kingsley, people are stupider partly because of _ .
Options: (A) a non-stop reading pattern (B) the straight, left-to-right screen (C) a wide range of interesting news (D) the lack of reflection
Asnwer: A

A: No
****
Q: Article: It is a familiar scene these days: employees taking newly laidoff coworkers out for a drink for comfort. But which side deserves sympathy more, the jobless or the still employed? On March 6, researchers at a conference at the University of Cambridge heard data suggesting it's the latter. Brendan Burchell, a Cambridge sociologist, presented his analysis based on various surveys conducted across Europe. The data suggest that employed people who feel insecure in their jobs show similar levels of anxiety and depression as those who are unemployed. Although a newly jobless person's mental health may "bottom out" after about six months, and then even begin to improve,the mental state of people who are continuously worried about losing their job "just continues to get worse and worse," Burchell says. Evolutionary psychologists support this theory by arguing that human beings feel more stress during times of insecurity because they sense an immediate but invisible threat. Patients have been known to experience higher levels of anxiety, for example, while waiting for examination results than knowing what they are suffering from -- even if the result is cancer. It's better to get the bad news and start doing something about it rather than wait with anxiety. When the uncertainty continues, people stay in a nonstop "fight or flight" response, which leads to damaging stress. But not every employee in insecure industries has such a discouraging view, Burchell says. In general, women get on better. While reporting higher levels of anxiety than men when directly questioned, women scored lower in stress on the GHQ 12, even when they had a job they felt insecure about losing. As Burchell explains, "For women, most studies show that any job -- it doesn't matter whether it is secure or insecure -- gives psychological improvement over unemployment." Burchell supposes that the difference in men is that they tend to feel pressure not only to be employed, but also to be the primary breadwinner, and that more of a man's selfworth depends on his job.
Question: Why do researchers think the still employed deserve sympathy more?
Options: (A) They have to do more work since then. (B) They have no chance to find better jobs. (C) They have to work with inexperienced workers. (D) They constantly worry about losing their job.
Asnwer: D

A:
Yes
****