(Q).
Article: Watching bison up close is fascinating, like watching a grass fire about to leap out of control. With their huge, wedge-shaped heads and silver-dollar-size brown eyes, the 2,000-pound animals are symbols of another place and time. More than 100 bison now roam the 30,000-acre American Prairie Reserve in eastern Montana -- the first time they've inhabited that region in a century. Direct descendants of the tens of millions of bison that once populated the Western plains, they represent an epic effort: to restore a piece of America's prairie to the national grandeur that Lewis and Clark extolled two centuries ago. During that famous expedition across the Western states to the Pacific, the two explorers encountered so many bison that they had to wait hours for one herd to pass. In order to protect what's here and reintroduce long-gone wildlife (something the World Wildlife Fund is helping with), the American Prairie Foundation began purchasing land from local ranchers in 2004. It now owns 30,000 acres and has grazing privileges on another 57,000. Its goal over the next 25 years is to assemble three million acres, the largest area of land devoted to wildlife management in the continental United States. Already, herds of elk, deer, and pronghorn antelope roam the grasslands, where visitors can camp, hike, and bike. Cottonwoods and willows are thriving along streams, creating habitats for bobcats, beavers, and other animals. Not everyone shares APF's vision. Some residents of Phillips County (pop. 3,904) worry that the area could become a prairie Disneyland, overcrowded with tourists. But the biggest obstacle is the ranchers themselves, whose cattle compete with prairie dogs and bison for grass and space. "People like me have no intention of selling their ranches," says Dale Veseth, who heads the Ranchers Stewardship Alliance of 35 families in Phillips County and whose family has been ranching here since 1886. "They've been a labor of love through the generations." Instead, he wants APF to pay or ranchers to raise... Question: If you go to the American Prairie Reserve in eastern Montana, you will see _ . Yes or no, is the answer "hundreds of bison travelling through the prairie"?
(A).
No

(Q).
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: We can learn from the passage that those men who have stronger ability to bear mental stress usually_. Yes or no, is the answer "have the more active variant of gene"?
(A).
No

(Q).
Article: The death of languages is not a new phenomenon. Languages usually have a relatively short life span as well as a very high death rate. Only a few, including Egyptian, Chinese, Greek, Latin, have lasted more than 2,000 years. What is new, however, is the speed at which they are dying out. Europe's colonial conquests caused a sharp decline in linguistic diversity, eliminating at least 15 percent of all languages spoken at the time. Over the last 300 years, Europe has lost a dozen, and Australia has only 20 left of the 250 spoken at the end of the 18th century. The rise of nation-states has also been decisive in selecting and consolidating national languages and sidelining others. By making great efforts to establish an official language in education, the media and the civil service, national governments have deliberately tried to eliminate minority languages. This process of linguistic standardization has been boosted by industrialization and scientific progress, which have imposed new methods of communication that are swift, straightforward and practical. Language diversity came to be seen as an obstacle to trade and the spread of knowledge. Monolingualism became an ideal. More recently, the internationalization of financial markets, the spread of information by electronic media and other aspects of globalization have intensified the threat to "small" languages. A language not on the Internet is a language that "no longer exists" in the modern world. It is out of the game. The serious effects of the death of languages are evident. First of all, it is possible that if we all ended up speaking the same language, our brains would lose some of their natural capacity for linguistic inventiveness. We would never be able to figure out the origins of human language or resolve the mystery of "the first language". As each language dies, a chapter of human history closes. Multilingualism is the most accurate reflection of multiculturalism. The destruction of the first will inevitably lead to the loss of the second.... Question: The serious effects of the death of languages include all except that _ . Yes or no, is the answer "Language diversity would become an obstacle to globalization"?
(A).
No