I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: A funny thing happened on the way to the communication revolution: we stopped talking to one another. I was walking in the park with a friend recently, and his cell phone rang, interrupting our conversation. There we were, walking and talking on a beautiful sunny day and suddenly, I became invisible, absent from the conversation. The telephone used to connect you to the absent. Now it makes people sitting next to you feel absent. Why is it that the more connected we get, the more disconnected I feel? Every advance in communication technology is a tragedy to the closeness of human interaction. With email and instant messaging over the Internet, we can now communicate without seeing or talking to one another. With voice-mail, you can conduct entire conversations without ever reaching anyone. If my mom has a question, I just leave the answer on her machine. As almost every contact we can imagine between human beings gets automated, the emotional distance index goes up. You can't even call a person to get the phone number of another person any more. Directory assistance is almost always fully automated. I am not against modern technology. I own a cell phone, an ATM card, a voice-mail system, and an email account. Giving them up isn't wise. They're a great help to us. It's some of their possible consequences that make me feel uneasy. More and more, I find myself hiding behind email to do a job meant for conversations or being relieved with voice-mail picking up because I don't really have time to talk. The industry devoted to helping me keep in touch is making me lonelier. Question: Which is NOT TURE according to the passage? Options: A: The author has decided not to use his phone when he is with his friend. B: Modern technology makes it hard for people to have a face-to-face talk. C: The limited use of communication device brings much inconvenience to the author. D: The industry intended to keep people in touch is taking them away from each other.
C

I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: Gordon Brown was born in Scotland in 1951.His childhood was a brilliant success because of his intellectual strength.He was accepted into middle school at 10.At 16 he became the youngest student at Edinburgh University. "At that time, he was a lucky boy, good at almost everything," said his old friend Murray Elder.However, setbacks fell on the brilliant boy.After a rugby injury, he became blind in his left eye.Before long, similar symptoms developed in his right eye."I lay in the hospital bed in total darkness, uncertain about my future," said Brown. Looking back into the past, Brown didn't complain about his bad luck.He even said: "One door closes; you can't play rugby any more, so you focus on other things." Brown was interested in student politics in university, which helped a lot in his political career later in life. In 1997, Brown was made Chancellor of the Exchequer .He has succeeded in giving the country a high rate of employment and the longest period of economic growth in its history. Compared with his successful career, Brown's family life is full of downs.He lost his first daughter ten days after her birth.His one-year-old youngest son has a deadly disease."These accidents make me appreciate my life more," he said. Question: Gordon Brown was successful in his childhood because he _ . Options: A: was very intelligent B: went to middle school at 10 C: played rugby very well D: became the youngest student at Edinburgh University
A

I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: The question this week comes from our listener Herve Acard, who asks about the American word "OK", which means "all right" or "acceptable". It expresses agreement or approval. The word is used more often than any other word in the world. Language expert Allen Walker Read said the word began as a short way of writing a different spelling of the words "all correct". Old stories say some foreign-born people would write "all correct" as o-l-l k-o-r-r-e-c-t and spoke it as "OK". Some people say it came from the Native American Indian tribe known as the Choctaws. The Choctaw word "okeh" means the same as the American word "OK". Experts say early explorers in the Western America spoke the Choctaw language in the nineteenth century. The language spread across the country. According to some people, "OK" was a way to shorten Greek words that mean everything is fine. It is also said that a railroad worker named Obadiah Kelly invented the word. He is said to have put the first letters of his names -- O and K -- on each object people gave him to place on the train. Another explanation is that "OK" was invented by a political organization that supported Martin Van Buren for president in the 1800s. They called their organization the OK Club. The letters O and K were taken from the name of the town where Martin Van Buren was born -- Old Kinderhook, New York. Not everyone agrees with these explanations, but experts do agree that the word is purely American and has spread to almost every country on Earth. Yet in the United States, it is used mostly in speech. Serious writers prefer using words, such as "agree", "approve" or "confirm" instead. Question: Of the following origins, which one has the same meaning as the American word "OK"? Options: A: The OK Club B: The Choctaw word "okeh" C: The word invented by Martin Van Buren D: The short form of "all correct"
B

I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: For most of the 20th century, Asia asked itself what it could learn from the modern, innovating West. Now the question must be reversed. What can the West's overly indebted and sluggish nations learn from a flourishing Asia? Just a few decades ago, Asia's two giants were stagnating under faulty economic ideologies. However, once China began embracing free-market reforms in the 1980s, followed by India in the 1990s, both countries achieved rapid growth. Crucially, as they opened up their markets, they balanced market economy with sensible government direction. As the Indian economist Amartya Sen has wisely said, "The invisible hand of the market has often relied heavily on the visible hand of government." Contrast this middle path with America and Europe, which have each gone ideologically over-board in their own ways. Since the 1980s, America has been increasingly clinging to the ideology of uncontrolled free markets and dismissing the role of government---following Ronald Regan's idea that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. "Of course, when the markets came crashing down in 2007, it was decisive government intervention that saved the day. Despite this fact, many Americans are still strongly opposed to "big government." If Americans could only free themselves from their antigovernment doctrine(,), they would begin to see that the America's problems are not insoluble. A few sensible federal measures could put the country back on the right path. A simple consumption tax of, say, 5% would significantly reduce the country's huge government deficit without damaging productivity. A small gasoline tax would help free America from its dependence on oil imports and create motivations for green energy development. In the same way, a significant reduction of wasteful agricultural subsidies could also lower the deficit. But in order to take advantage of these common-sense solutions, Americans will have to put aside their own attachment to the idea of smaller government and less... Question: What is the author's suggestion to the American public in face of the public government deficit? Options: A: They urge the government to revise its existing public policies. B: They develop green energy to avoid dependence on oil import. C: They give up the idea of smaller government and less regulation. D: They put up with the inevitable sharp increase of different taxes.
C