Ques:Article: Reading to oneself is modern activity which was almost unknown to the learned in the early days of the history, while during the fifteenth century the term "reading" undoubtedly meant reading aloud. Only during the nineteenth century did silent reading become popular. One should be careful, however, of supposing that silent reading came about simply because reading aloud is distraction to others. Examination of reasons connected with the historical development of silent reading shows that it became the usual mode of reading for most adult reading tasks mainly because the tasks themselves changed in character. The last century saw a gradual increase in literacy and thus in the number of readers. As readers increased, so the number of listeners dropped, and thus there was some reduction in the need to read aloud. As reading for the benefit of listeners grew less common, so came the popularity of reading as a private activity in such public places as libraries, trains and offices, where reading aloud would disturb other readers in a way. Towards the end of the century there was still heated argument over whether books should be used for information or treated respectfully, and over whether the reading of material such as newspapers was in some way mentally weakening. Indeed this argument remains with us still in education. However, whatever its advantages, the old shared literacy culture had gone and was replaced by the printed mass media on the one hand and by books and magazines for a specialized readership on the other. By the end of the century students were being advised to have some new ideas of books and to use skill in reading them which were not proper, if not impossible, for the oral reader. The social, cultural, and technological developments in the century had greatly changed what the term "reading" referred to. Question: Why was reading aloud common before the nineteenth century? Yes or no, is the answer "Because few people could read for themselves."?

Ans:Yes
-----
Ques:Article: Scientists have discovered a gene that plays a role in violence in men ill-treated in childhood.The discovery could explain why some experience unhappy childhoods and go on to normal lives, while others turn to violence, crime of antisocial deeds. But it will also restart another argument. Terrie Moffitt and Avshalom Caspi report in Science today that one common form of a gene in the brain makes men more likely to be violent--but only if they have experienced cruelty or rejection in childhood . The researchers followed up the life histories of 442 boys born in New Zealand in 1972. Of these, 154 had been ill-treated in the first 10 years, 33 of them badly. They had either experienced sexual attack, beatings or rejection by mother or stepparents. Of the 154 children , 55 had a less active variant of a gene called MAOA, and 99 had the more active variant . The 55 boys were more than twice as likely to have been in trouble as the other ill-treated group . They made up 12% of the total, but were responsible for 44% of all crimes from among the 442 boys. Prof Moffitt thought a "violence" gene had not been discovered. Boys with the less active form who were not ill-treated during childhood lived normal lives. "It is very common in the population. One third of us have it." she said, "So the gene doesn't do much of anything, it doesn't cause any trouble in any way, unless we are also ill -treated". The gene might also show the ability to bear mental stress. The army or the police might examine the applicants to see if they have the more active form . But the discovery also raises the argument that people with the less active form of the gene could be social dangers, to be treated with medicine. "This research can easily lead people to fix social problems through medical treatment," said David King of the UK Gene Alert Group. Question: According to the passage, the less active variant of the gene_. Yes or no, is the answer "might be responsible for boys' bad deeds"?

Ans:Yes
-----
Ques:Article: Laws that would have ensured pupils from five to 16 received a full financial education got lost in the 'wash up'. An application is calling on the next government to bring it back. At school the children are taught to add up and subtract but, extraordinarily, are not routinely shown how to open a bank account -- let alone how to manage their finances in an increasingly complex and demanding world. Today the parenting website Mumsnet and the consumer campaigner Martin Lewis have joined forces to launch an online application to make financial education a compulsory element of the school curriculum in England. Children from five to 16 should be taught about everything from pocket money to pensions, they say. And that was exactly the plan preserved in the Children, Schools and Families bill that was shelved by the government in the so-called "wash-up" earlier this month -- the rush to legislation before parliament was dismissed. Consumer and parent groups believe financial education has always been one of the most frustrating omissions of the curriculum. As the Personal Finance Education Group (Pfeg) points out, the good habits of young children do not last long. Over 75% of seven- to 11-year-olds are savers but by the time they get to 17, over half of them are in debt to family and friends. By this age, 26% see a credit card or overdraft as a way of extending their spending power. Pfeg predicts that these young people will "find it much harder to avoid the serious unexpected dangers that have befallen many of their parents' generation unless they receive good quality financial education while at school." The UK has been in the worst financial recession for generations. It does seem odd that -- unless parents step in -- young people are left in the dark until they are cruelly introduced to the world of debt when they turn up at university. In a recent poll of over 8,000 people, 97% supported financial education in schools, while 3% said it was a job for parents. Question: A poll is mentioned to _ . Yes or no, is the answer "stress the necessity of the curriculum reform"?

Ans:Yes
-----
Ques:Article: Do's and Don'ts in Whale Watching The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has developed guidelines for whale watching in Johnstone Strait,where killer whales are found on a daily basis each summer. It is strongly recommended that vessel operators follow these guidelines for all kinds of whales. * Approach whales from the side, not from the front or the back. * Approach no closer than 100 metres, then stop the boat but keep the engine on. * Keep noise levels down-no horns, whistles or racing of engines. * Start your boat only after the whales are more than 100 metres from your vessel. * Leave the area slowly, gradually moving faster when you are more than 300 metres from the whales. * Approach and leave slowly, avoiding sudden changes in speed or direction. * Avoid disturbing groups of resting whales. * Keep at low speeds and remain in the same direction if travelling side by side with whales. * When whales are travelling close to shore, avoid crowding them near the shore or coming between the whales and the shore. * Limit the time spent with any group of whales to less than 30 minutes at a time when within 100 to 200 metres of whales. * If there is more than one vessel at the same observation spot, be sure to avoid any boat position that would result in surrounding the whales. * Work together by communicating with other vessels, and make sure that all operators are aware of the whale watching guidelines. Question: What is the shortest safe distance from the whales? Yes or no, is the answer "100 metres."?

Ans:
No
-----