Article: Over the years I've been teaching kids about a simple but powerful spirit--the ant philosophy. I think we should study ants. Ants have an amazing four-part philosophy, and here is the first part:they never _ . That's a good philosophy. If they're heading somewhere and you try to stop them,they'll look for another way. They'll climb over, and they'll climb around. They keep looking for another way. What a neat philosophy, to never quit looking for a way to get where they're supposed to go! Second,ants think about winter all summer. That's an important perspective(,). You can' t be so naive as to think summer will last forever. So ants are gathering their winter food in summer. An ancient story says, "Don't build your house on the sand in summer. "There is some reason in what it says. It is important to think ahead. In summer, you've to think about the storm. You've got to think about freezing while you are enjoying the sand and the sun. The third part of the ant philosophy is that ants think about summer all winter. That is also important. During the winter, ants remind themselves,"This won't last long;we'll soon be out of here. "And on the first warm day,the ants are out. If it turns cold again,they'll go back,but then they come out again if it is warm. They can't wait to get out. And here is the last part of the ant philosophy. How much will an ant gather during the summer to prepare for the winter? All that it possibly can. What an incredible philosophy, the "all-that-you-possibly-can" philosophy! What a great philosophy to have--the ant philosophy! Never give up,look ahead,stay active and do all you can. Question: Which of the following shows the "all-that-you-possibly-can" philosophy? Yes or no, is the answer "We should try our best to do what we can."?
No

(Question)
Article: It's impolite to spit out the first bite of your dinner. But to a type of Australian snake, this rude behavior is a matter of life and death. The snake, called a floodplain death adder , eats two types of frogs that are hard to stomach. The frogs produce chemicals to defend them from predators . One of these species, the Dahl's frog, can kill a snake that tries to eat it. The other species, the marbled frog, is less dangerous but still tough to eat. When attacked, _ produces a glue like substance. Leaves and branches get caught up in this material, making a big sticky mess that gets in the way of anything trying to swallow it. A marbled frog can even get stuck on the head of an attacking snake. Both frogs have good defense methods. But the floodplain death adder knows how to get around each of them. Floodplain death adders quickly strike these frogs, using their poisonous teeth to inject poison. But then, instead of swallowing their dinner immediately, the snakes sit back and wait for their preys to become safe to eat. That's because both the Dahl's frog's protective toxin and the marbled frog's glue break down over time. After a while, the frog toxin is no longer poisonous and the glue is no longer sticky. The two substances break down at different rates, and floodplain death adders seem to know the difference, And adder waits for a different length of time depending on the species of frog it just struck. The stickiness of the marbled frog glue decreased by as much as two-thirds after just 10 minutes. And that's just about how long an adder waits before eating a marbled frog. On the other hand, the snakes wait for about 40 minutes before eating a Dahl's frog. That's enough time for the frog's toxin to break down into harmless substances. But even a quick strike gives a taste of the Dahl frog's toxin. After striking such a frog, a floodplain death adder thrashes around and lies on its back with its mouth open, It's like the snake has just had a... Question: The glue produced by the marbled frog is used for_. Yes or no, is the answer "preventing anything from tying to attack it"?
(Answer)
No

Ques: Article: What do you do when you need to look something up? Go to the library? Open an encyclopedia ? Click onto the Internet? These days, most people go straight to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. But how reliable is it? There is no denying the popularity and usefulness of Wikipedia. It attracts as many as 78 million visitors every month, and the site is available in more than 270 different languages. It's one of the most comprehensive resources available, which includes almost all details, facts and information that maybe concerned. It's got much more information than an ordinary encyclopedia. The site is updated on a daily basis by thousands of people around the world. Anyone with an Internet connection can log on and edit the contents or add a new page. And you don't need any formal training. Of course, there are some controls. Wikipedia has a team of more than 1,500 administrators who check for false information. And main targets for harmful comments(such as politicians) are _ to public editing. But with more than 16 million articles to keep an eye on, it isn't easy. So, while Wikipedia benefits from being constantly updated with information from all over the world, it's also open to "vandals" . Some of the damage is easy to notice. One person drew devil horns and a moustache on Microsoft chairman Bill Gates' photo, while another edited Greek philosopher Plato's biography to say he was a "Hawaiian weather man who is wildly believed to have been a student of'Barney the purple Dinosaur' and to have been deeply influenced by his dog, Cutie". But other things are harder to spot. The most common form of vandalism involves adding tiny items of false information into the biography of a famous person. Unbelievably, some of this misinformation has appeared in newspapers, with The Daily Mail, The Guardian and The Independent all having fallen victim to the dirty tricks. For example, in an article about British comedian Sir Norman Wisdom, one newspaper claimed that he co-wrote Dame Vera Lynn's wartime hit There'll be... Question: What's the writer's attitude to Wikipedia? Yes or no, is the answer "Objective"?
Ans: No

Ques:Article: A young man once went to town and bought himself a pair of trousers. When he got home, he went to his room and put them on. He found that they were about two inches too long. He went into the kitchen, and his mother and two sisters were doing some washing there. He said to them, "The new trousers are too long. They need cutting by two inches. Would one of you mind doing this for me?" His mother and sisters were busy and none of them said anything. But as soon as his mother had finished washing up, she went to her son's room silently and cut the trousers by two inches. She came back without saying anything to her daughters. After supper, the elder sister remembered her brother's trousers. She went to his room and cut the trousers by two inches without saying anything to anyone. The younger sister went to the cinema. But when she came back, she also remembered her brother's trousers. So she went to his room and cut them by two inches, too. Question: What can we infer from the story? Yes or no, is the answer "Maybe the young man didn't try on the trousers when he bought them"?

Ans:
No