(Q).
I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: The way people in the US travel to and from work has changed a lot in the last fifty years. Before the Second World War, most people lived in the town or the city where they worked. Almost everyone either walked to work or used a good inexpensive transportation system Many of these systems were electrified and ran on tracks, so they used very little energy. After 1945, the US government built many new roads and highways. People moved farther and farther form the cities where they worked because they could drive their cars on these new roads from their suburban homes to work in the city. Some of the big car makers also bought the electrified transportation systems and destroyed them. As people stopped using public transporation , cities spent less money fixing old buses and trains or buying new ones. Public transportation got worse and worse. In the late 1960s, people found out that the increase in the use of cars led to many problems. There were always too many cars for the highway system, and terrible traffic problems developed. People were spending hours in traffic jams getting to and from work every day. In addition, the air in many cities became dirty because of pollution from millions of cars, and many people died in traffic accidents. As people began to get worried about how the use of cars was hurting the environment, cities began to spend more money on public transportation again, so fewer people would have to drive cars. When gas became very expensive in the mid-1970s, the number of people taking public transportation began to increase .It's terribly expensive to build new public transportation systems. so it's very difficult to make big changes in the way people travel .However ,an increase in the use of public transportation has begun. Question: Why did some car companies buy and destroy public transportation systems? Options: A: The system were slower than cars. B: The systems were too old to be fixed. C: They were trying to build better ones. D: They wanted to sell more of their products.
(A).
D

(Q).
I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: 66-year-old Dai once worked as a boat tracker along the Yangtze River. "It was something that required brute strength,but not that alone, "Dai said at his home in Xialong village, which sits at the entrance to Wuxia Gorge, one of the famous Three Gorges in Southwest China. "You needed a lot of skills to do what we did." When outboard motors became available in the 1980's,boat trackers became a thing of the past. Today, they are seen only occasionally along the river during festivals and cultural events. However, Dai can still remember a time when being pulled by tracker along the Yangtze was the only way for people to travel from village to village in the mountainous Wushan county. Due to the area's rich mining resources,his services were vital for companies that wanted to ship their goods. "I was 15 or 16 when I started", said the retiree,explaining that his father also worked as a tracker. "He died in 1964, when I was a teenager. I can't even remember us tracking together, but we did. It was so long ago." Dai said that boats crews worked in teams with a first, second and third master. The first master was the most essential because he sat in the boat and steered it along the safest route. "It was a key role. He had to guide the boat past jagged rocks and whirlpools," he said, adding that first masters were often the most experienced boatmen and the most familiar with the Yangtzer River. "My tracker days were dangerous," Dai said. "If the boat got caught in a whirlpool, it could have swallowed the boat and all the trackers down with it. The same thing would have happened if the halter broke." Dai's days as a tracker finally came to an end when his family invested in a motorboat in the early 1980s. He successfully applied for a license from Wushan shortly after. Question: For about how many years did Dai work as a tracker? Options: A: 5 years. B: 10 years. C: 20 years. D: 30 years
(A).
C

(Q).
I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: Concepts from science and nature are filled with our language's common phrases , idioms and spoken expressions. The unbelieving expression "Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle" has its origin in bitter disbelief over Darwin's writings on evolution. These colourful expressions bring spice to our language. Yet certain well-used phrases from science are just plain wrong! Some are obvious, yet we use them anyhow. For example, a person who acutely shakes her head and says " A watched pot never boils" while you are waiting second after tiring second for test results to arrive or job offers to come in knows that if she sat down and watched a pot containing water on a stove over high heat for long enough, the water will eventually boil. However, a few phrases have less obvious scientific inaccuracies. Here are a few for you to consider. Once in a blue moon: This poetic phrase refers to something that occurs extremely rarely. A blue moon is the term commonly used for a second full moon that occasionally appears in a single month of our solar-based calendars. The problem with the phrase, however, is that blue moons are not so rare. They happen every few years at least, and can even happen within months of each other when the 29.5-day lunar cycle puts the full moon at the beginning of any month but February. The usage of "blue moon" as the second full moon in a month dates back to a 1937 Marine Farmer's Almanac . But before that, blue moons meant something slightly different. Typically, 12 full moons occur from winter solstice to the next winter solstice, but occasionally a fourth full moon in a season could be observed . In such a case, one of the four full moons in that season was known as "blue" Where there's smoke, there's fire: The phrase means that if something looks wrong, it likely is wrong. But let's step back. Do you always have to have fire if you see smoke? Answering that first requires defining 'fire" , Merriam--Webster's first definition of fire is " the phenomenon of combustion manifested in light, flame and... Question: The author's attitude towards the scientific inaccuracies of the phrases is _ . Options: A: indifferent B: objective C: critical D: favourable
(A).
D