Article: One's style of the dress reveals the human obsession with both novelty and tradition. People use clothing to declare their membership in a particular social group; however, the rules for what is acceptable dress for that group may change. In affluent societies, this changing of the rules is the driving force behind fashions. By keeping up with fashions, that is, by changing their clothing style frequently but meanwhile, members of a group both satisfy their desire for and obey the rules, thus demonstrating their membership in the group. There are some interesting variations regarding individual status. Some people, particularly in the West, consider themselves of such high status that they do not need to display it with their clothing. For example, many wealthy people in the entertainment industry appear in very casual clothes, such as the worn jeans and work boots of a manual laborer. However, it is likely that a subtle but important signal, such as an expensive wristwatch, will prevail over the message of the casual dress. Such an inverted status display is most likely to occur where the person's high status is conveyed in ways other than with clothing, such as having a famous face. Question: According to the author, fashions serve all the following purposes EXCEPT Yes or no, is the answer "signaling a change in personal beliefs"?
No

Article: When you get in your car, you reach for it. When you're at work, you take a break to have a moment alone with it. When you get into a lift, you play with it. Cigarette? Cup of coffee? No, it's the third most addictive thing in modem life, the cell phone. And experts say it is becoming more difficult for many people to _ their longing to hug it more tightly than most of their personal relationships. The costs are becoming more and more evident, and I don't mean just the monthly bill. Dr. Chris Knippers, a counselor at the Betty ford Center in Southern California, reports that the overuse of cell phones has become a social problem not much different from other harmful addictions: a barrier to one-on-one personal contact, and an escape from reality. Sounds extreme, but we' ve all witnessed the evidence: The person at a restaurant who talks on the phone through an entire meal, ignoring his kids around the table; the woman who talks on the phone in the car, ignoring her husband; the teen who texts messages all the way home from school, avoiding contact with kids all around him. Jim Williams, an industrial sociologist based in Massachusetts, notes that cell - phone addiction is part of a set of symptoms in a widening gulf of personal separation. He points to a study by Duke University researchers that found one-quarter of Americans say they have no one to discuss their most important personal business with. Despite the growing use of phones, e - mail and instant messaging, in other words, Williams says studies show that we don't have as many friends as our parents. " Just as more information has led to less wisdom, more acquaintances via the Internet and cell phones have produced fewer friends," he says. If the cell phone has truly had these effects, it's because it has become very widespread. Consider that in 1987, there were only l million cell phones in use. Today, something like 300 million Americans carry them. They far outnumber wired phones in the United States. Question: The example of a woman talking on the phone in the car supports the idea that _ . Yes or no, is the answer "cell phones do not necessarily bring people together"?
No

Q: Article: Katie was in big trouble. She was such a sweet kid; a third-grade teacher always dreamed of having a classroom filled with Katies; she was never ever a discipline problem. I just couldn't imagine why she had made her parents so angry. It seemed that Katie had been running up sizable charges in the lunchroom. Her parents explained that Katie brought a great homemade lunch each day, and there was no reason for her to buy school lunch. They assumed a sit-down with Katie would solve the problem, but failed. So they asked me to help them get to the bottom of this situation. So the next day, I asked Katie to my office. "Why are you charging lunches, Katie? What happened to your homemade lunch?" I asked. "I lose it," she responded. I leaned back in my chair and said, "I don't believe you, Katie. " She didn't care. "Is someone stealing your lunch, Katie?" I took a new track. "No. I just lose it," she said. Well, there was nothing else I could do. The problem was still unsolved the next week when I noticed a boy who was new to the school sitting alone at a lunch table. He always looked sad. I thought I would go and sit with him for a while. As I walked towards him, I noticed the lunch bag on the table. The name on the bag said "Katie". Now I understood and I talked to Katie. It seemed that the new boy never brought a lunch, and he wouldn't go to the lunch line for a free lunch. He had told Katie his secret and asked her not to tell anyone that his parents wanted him to get a free lunch at school. Katie asked me not to tell her parents, but I drove to her house that evening after I was sure that she was in bed. I had never seen parents so proud of their child. Katie didn't care that her parents and teacher were disappointed in her. But she cared about a little boy who was hungry and scared. Katie still buys lunch every day at school. And every day, as she heads out of the door, her mom hands her a delicious homemade lunch. Question: What was Katie's parents' reaction to the truth about the lunch? Yes or no, is the answer "They were proud of Katie."?
A: No

(Q).
Article: Which is safer --- staying at home, traveling to work on public transport, or working at the office? Surprisingly, each of these carries the same risk, which is very low.However, what about flying compared to working in the chemical industry? Unfortunately, the former is 65 times riskier than the latter! In fact the accident rate of workers in the chemical industry is less than that of almost any of human activity, and almost as safe as staying at home. The trouble with the chemical industry is that when things go wrong they often cause death to those living nearby.It is this that makes chemical accidents so newsworthy.Fortunately, they are extremely rare.The most famous ones happened at Texas City (1947), Flixborough (1974), Seveso (1976), Pemex (1984) and Bhopal (1984). Some of these are always in the minds of the people even though the loss of life was small.No one died at Seveso, and only 28 workers at Flixborough.The worst accident of all was Bhopal, where up to 3,000 were killed.The Texas City explosion of fertilizer killed 552.The Pemex fire at a storage plant for natural gas in the suburbs of Mexico City took 542 lives, just a month before the unfortunate event at Bhopal. Some experts have discussed these accidents and used each accident to illustrate a particular danger.Thus the Texas City was caused by tons of ammonium nitrate, which is safe unless stored in a great quantity.The Flixborough fireball was the fault of management, which took risks to keep production going during essential repairs.The Seveso accident shows what happens if the local authorities lack knowledge of the danger on their doorstep.When the poisonous gas drifted over the town , local leaders were incapable of taking effective action.The Pemex fire was made worse by an overloaded site in an overcrowded suburb.The fire set off a chain reaction of exploding storage tanks.Yet, by a miracle, the two largest tanks did not explode.Had these caught fire, then 3,000 strong rescue team and fire fighters would all have died. Question: Chemical accidents are usually important enough to be reported as news because _ . Yes or no, is the answer "they often cause loss of life"?
(A).
No