Question: Article: Polluted airborne particles kill 7 million people a year, reports the World Health Organization. That news may not come as a surprise to anyone who has seen images of chimneys in Beijing, Delhi or Mexico. But those factories-or even the jammed roadways of modern cities-are not the biggest killer. Each year, some 4.3 million people die earlier than they should because of polluted air inside their homes, says the WHO. What's causing the air inside people's homes to be so poisonous that it kills around 11,000 people a day? Stoves. "Having an open fire in your kitchen is like burning 400 cigarettes an hour." says Kirk Smith, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, whose research suggests that household air pollution from cooking killed between 3.5 million and 4 million people in 2013. Not all stoves cause this kind of harm. The ones Smith's talking about are those that the 3 billion people in the developing world use for heat and cooking, which burn solid fuels such as wood, coal, or crop waste instead of gas. The smoke from those fires produces harmful fine particles and carbon monoxide into homes. Poor _ then prevents that smoke from escaping, raising fine particle levels 100 times higher than the limits that the WHO considers acceptable. Breathing this air day in day out eventually causes a lot of diseases: more than a third of the 4.3 million die of a stroke, while a quarter die of heart disease. And around one-third of annual lung disease deaths worldwide are due to waste from coal stoves. Exposure tends to be extremely harmful for the people who spend the most time around the fire-usually women and young children. In fact, the WHO reports that household air pollution almost doubles the risk for childhood lung disease. Question: According to Kirk Smith's research, _ . Yes or no, is the answer "household air pollution from cooking is surprisingly harmful"?
Answer: No

Question: Article: Britain's longterm unemployed could be forced to carry out manual work or risk losing their welfare benefits under plans being put forward by the government. The U.S.style scheme would see the longterm jobless ordered to take up fourweek placements in order to get them used to having a fulltime job. The idea is part of major reforms, due to be unveiled this week, to make cuts to Britain's huge welfare bill, reduce dependency on benefits and weed out those earning money but not declaring it, papers said. "What we are talking about here is people who have not been used to working having both the opportunity and perhaps a bit more of a push as well, to experience the workplace from time to time. The vast majority of people in Britain will think that is the right thing to do." Foreign Secretary William Hague told BBC TV. Shortly after the ConservativeLiberal Democrat Union took power in May, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith unveiled plans to simplify the complex web of benefits available to reduce errors and inefficiencies. Duncan Smith said the system had become regressive and was not giving people the right encouragement to work as many were financially better off unemployed. Under his plans separate benefits for items such as housing, income support or disability will be replaced by a "universal credit" system whereby individual households would get a single welfare payment to ensure those in work would be better off. The Observer newspaper said that in return, longterm unemployed would be told to take up work placements of at least 30 hours a week for a fourweek period. If they refuse or fail to complete the programme, their jobseekers' allowance, worth 64.30 pounds a week for those over 25, could be stopped for at least three months. Question: How can a longterm unemployed save his welfare benefit at least? Yes or no, is the answer "They should work at least thirty hours a week for four weeks."?
Answer: Yes

Question: Article: The discovery that language can be a barrier to communication is quickly made by all who travel, study, govern or sell. Whether the activity is tourism, research, government, policing or business, the lack of a common language can severely delay progress or can stop it altogether. Although communication problems of this kind must happen thousands of times each day, very few become public knowledge. Publicity comes only when a failure to communicate has major results, such as strikes, lost orders, legal problems or deadly accidents--even, at times, war. One reported example of communication failure took place in 1970, when several Americans ate a species of poisonous mushroom. No remedy was known, and two of the people died within days. A radio report of the case was heard by a chemist who knew of a treatment that had been successfully used in 1959 and published in 1963. Why had the American doctors not heard of it seven years later? Possibly because the report of the treatment had been published only in journals written in European languages other than English. Several comparable cases have been reported. But isolated examples do not give an impression of the size of the problem--something that can come only from studies of the use or avoidance of foreign-language materials and contacts in different communicative situations. In the English-speaking scientific world, for example, surveys of books and documents consulted in libraries and other information agencies have shown that very little foreign-language material is ever consulted. Library requests in the field of science and technology showed that only 13 percent were for foreign language journals. The language barrier presents itself entirely to firms who wish to market their products in other countries. British industry, in particular, has in recent decades often been criticized for its assumption that foreign buyers will be happy to communicate in English, and that awareness of other languages is not therefore a matter to be considered first. In... Question: What can we infer about American doctors from the case of the poisonous mushrooms? Yes or no, is the answer "They probably only read reports written in English."?
Answer:
No