Article: In 1996, John Tierney suggested in the New York Times Magazine article that "recycling is garbage." He wrote, "The money spent on recycling programs should have been spent on real social and environmental problems. Recycling programs not only increase energy use and pollution, but also cost more money than the disposal of plain old garbage. Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America." Environmental groups were quick to express their disagreement. They wrote reports on how recycling programs in cities can reduce pollution and cost less than regular garbage pickup and disposal. Michael Shapiro, an official of the US Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), said that "recycling can be good value for money, although there's still room for improvements." But in 2002, New York City, a pioneer of recycling, found that its recycling program was losing money, so it stopped glass and plastic recycling. Other major cities watched closely to see how New York was dealing with its remaining program (the city never stopped paper recycling). But then it closed its last landfill , and private companies out of New York raised prices due to the increased workload of carrying away and disposing New York's garbage. As a result, glass and plastic recycling became profitable for the city again, and New York brought the program back. According to Cecil Adams of The Chicago Reader, the lessons learned by New York are relevant everywhere. He believes that, if managed correctly, recycling programs should cost cities less than garbage disposal. Even though the benefits of recycling over disposal are many, keep in mind that it better serves the environment to "reduce and reuse" before recycling is even considered as a choice. Question: Which of the following would the author most probably recommend? Yes or no, is the answer "Always bring your own shopping bag when you go shopping."?
No

Article: I was brought up in the British, stiff upper lip style. Strong feelings aren't something you display in public. So, you can imagine that I was unprepared for the outpouring of public grief at a Chinese funeral. My editorial team leader died recently after a short illness. He was 31. The news was so unexpected that it left us all shocked and upset. A female colleague burst into tears and cried piteously at her desk. Somehow we got through the day's work. The next day was the funeral. Our big boss stepped forward to deliver a eulogy and was soon in tears. She carried on, in Chinese of course, but at the end said in English: "There will be no more deadlines for you in heaven." Next came a long-term colleague who also dissolved in tears but carried on with her speech despite being almost overcome by emotion. Then a close friend of the dead man paid tribute, weeping openly as he spoke. Sorrow is spreading. Me and women were now sobbing uncontrollably. Finally, the man's mother, supported between two women, addressed her son in his coffin. She almost collapsed and had to be held up. We were invited to step forward to each lay a white rose on the casket. Our dead colleague looked as if he was taking a nap. At the end of the service I walked away from the funeral parlor stunned at the outpouring of emotion. In the UK, families grieve privately and then try to hold it together and not break down at a funeral. Here in China it would seem that grieving is a public affair. It strikes me that it is more cathartic to cry your eyes out than try to keep it bottled up for fear of embarrassment, which is what many of us do in the West. Afterwards, a Chinese colleague told me that the lamenting at the funeral had been restrained by Chinese standards. In some rural areas, she said, people used to be paid to mourn noisily. This struck me like something out of novel by Charles Dickens. But we have all seen on TV scenes of grief-stricken people in Gaza and the West Bank, in Afghanistan, Iraq and the relatives of victims of... Question: It is implied that _ . Yes or no, is the answer "the English might cry noisily for the dead in Dickens' time"?
No

Q: Article: The casual Friday concept was one of the first signs that strict dress rules for offices were starting to relax. The principle of casual Fridays seems to have appeared around the 1950s. It was probably in response to the changing attitudes towards workplaces. Over time, some offices have relaxed their dress rules even more by using a "business casual" dress rule. On casual Fridays, employees may wear clothes which are considered to be "business casual", meaning they still obey certain standards . Clothes must be clean and in good condition, with no spots. Men are generally allowed to wear casual trousers and bright-colored clothes, and in some offices they may be allowed to wear button-down shirts or polo shirts, with or without a tie. Women often wear neat skirts or dresses; casual trousers are common and generally allowed to wear, except in very formal workplaces. As a general rule, extremely casual clothes, like jeans, shorts, T-shirts, tank tops, and so on, are not encouraged on casual Fridays. Employees are still expected to make an effort to look professional, out of respect for their offices and their customers. Many people feel that casual Fridays are good for employees'mood because they encourage employees to express their individuality and feel more comfortable in the offices. Others feel that business casual clothing and the concept of casual Fridays don't show respect for the workplaces. Casual Fridays are dealt with differently, depending on the industry and the nation. The technology industry, for example, is well known for casual clothes in general, while major financial companies still dislike casual clothes. Question: Which of the following is TRUE according to the passage? Yes or no, is the answer "In general, leading financial companies don't prefer casual clothing."?
A: No

*Question*
Article: Passing a store, you might just step in and see if the store has received any new CDs. Once in the store, you're delighted to discover some new CDs that you must have. You could buy them later, of course, but you're already here, so why not now? In the checkout line you wonder whether to write a check or pay with a credit card. Either way would be OK, you suppose. The trouble with writing a check, though, is that you don't have much money left in your checking account. Using the credit card you won't have to pay at once, and when you do pay, you will only have to pay a little a month. So you hand the salesperson your plastic card, and that's the deal! There are a few good things about credit cards. For one thing, it's almost impossible to rent a car without a credit card. For another, they are helpful if you are in a situation where you don't have your checkbook or you have little cash with you. What are the disadvantages? One is that few people have the discipline to use their credit cards wisely. Instead, many fall into the buy-now-pay-later trap. Many become "addicted to plastic." Another disadvantage is that credit cards are more abstract than money or checks and thus contribute to our having less control over our money. Bank notes are physical things, and you have to _ your checking account every month when you pay with a check. This takes a bit of work, and although it's painful, it's more realistic. Credit cards represent the abstract, lending a certain air of unreality to the stage of managing your finances. All you do is sign your name; someone else does the math for you. Question: Which of the following might be the best title of the passage? Yes or no, is the answer "Watch out Your Credit Cards!"?
**Answer**
No