Article: When early colonial settlers went to America, they took many forms of dance to _ . Square dancing, one of the oldest forms of American folk dancing, developed from several different Old World group dances, mainly English country dances, and the French quadrille . In the American version of square dancing, four couples form a square and dance to music. An American addition to square dancing is the caller. What do you think a caller does? The callers---someone who calls out the dance steps in time to the music--- was a completely American invention. At first dancers memorized all the steps for a particular dance, but eventually the dances became so complicated that it was necessary to have someone call out cues so that dancers didn't have to remember so many steps. The caller didn't just call out "do-se-do your partner"; a good caller also came up with colorful sayings or witty lines that he said in between the cues such as "Don't be shy and don't be afraid. Swing on the corner in a waltz promenade ." A caller might also come up with new dance steps and routines. Although popular for years, square dancing seemed to be going out of style and fading away until the early 1930s, when Henry Ford helped revive interest in it. Ford, the automobile manufacturer, used to vacation at the Wayside Inn in Massachusetts, where he enjoyed the dance programme run by a man named Benjamin Lovett. Ford asked Lovett to come to Detroit and teach dances, but Lovett said he couldn't because he had a contract with the inn. Ford solved that problem by buying the inn and Lovett's contract. He took Lovett back to Detroit, where together they established a programme for teaching squares and rounds. Square dancing was updated and groups began forming all over the country. Question: What is the best title for the passage? Yes or no, is the answer "The Origin and Development of Square Dancing"?
No

(Question)
Article: We were on the way from Hutchinson to Chicago for a short spring break. For many years I had wanted to take my family on the train. We all had been to Chicago four years ago, and the kids loved it. Chicago is one of my favorite cities, too, so the thought struck me again last fall to ride the train to Chicago. Of course, flying would have been faster. But I don't think flying is easier, especially these days, with all the security and waiting in lines at airports. Though we were tired in the middle of the night, the kids got on the train with the _ of this adventure. "We're moving," my son William shouted happily with big eyes as the train began to pull away from the Hutchinson station. I removed my shoes and lay down to try to finish my night's sleep. The sleeper car would have better enabled that, but the ordinary train seats were not too bad. An airline flight is a more miserable experience for me: not enough room, two hours of pain with my knees almost touching my chin, the hard seatback in front cracking my kneecaps with every move of the body planted in front of me. On the train I could almost outstretch all of my 6-foot-2-plus body in the generous legroom. The journey didn't feel at all as long as it was. We all found the train ride a joy. The car ride would have felt every minute of 13 hours. But on the train you are free to walk around, sit in the observation carriage for a while and enjoy the scenery out the windows, have a nice meal in the dining car, read a book, or play a board game. In short, the train is all about enjoying the trip, which isn't something I do so much when traveling by airline or by car, when the trip seems more of a mission to get there than an experience to enjoy along the way. Chicago offers much to do for a family. This time, getting there was half the fun. Question: Which of the following words best describes the whole family's feeling about the train journey? Yes or no, is the answer "Delighted."?
(Answer)
Yes

Ques: Article: Who taught you to speak English? Your parents, while you were a child? Your teacher at school? Perhaps even the BBC as a grown-up. Whoever it was, somehow you have developed an understanding of what is rapidly becoming a truly global language. There are now about 376 million people who speak English as their first language, and about the same number who have learnt it in addition to their mother tongue. There are said to be one billion people learning English now and about 80% of the information on the Internet is in English. Is this a good thing, or a bad thing? Should we celebrate the fact that more and more of us can communicate, using a common language, across countries and cultures? Or should we worry about the dangers of " mono-culturalism", a world in which we all speak the same language, eat the same food and listen to the same music? Does it matter if an increasing number of people speak the same language? I would have thought the other way around although I have never accepted the argument that if only we all understood each other better, there would be fewer wars. _ ... If we all speak English, will we then all start eating McDonalds burgers? Surely not. If English becomes more dominant , it will kill other languages? I doubt it. When I travel in Africa or Asia, I am always surprised by how many people can speak not only their own language but often one or more other related languages, as well as English and perhaps some French or German as well. When we discussed this on Talking Point a couple of years ago, we received a wonderfully poetic email from a listener in Ireland. "The English language is a beautiful language. Maybe it's like a rose," he said. "But who would ever want their garden just full of roses?" Well, I love roses, and I think they make a beautiful addition to any garden. But the way I see it, just by planting a few roses, you don't necessarily need to pull out everything else. If more and more people want to plant English roses, that's fine by me. Question: The author would probably agree that _ . Yes or no, is the answer "it's good for people from other countries to learn English"?
Ans: Yes

Ques: Article: Sometimes in the next century, the familiar early-newspaper on the front porch will disappear. And instead of reading your newspaper, it will read to you. You'll get up and turn on the computer newspaper just like switching on the TV. An electronic voice will distribute stories about the latest events, guided by a program that selects the type of news you want. You'll even get to choose the kind of voice you want to hear. Want more information on the brief story? A simple touch makes the entire text appear. Save it in your own personal computer if you like. These are among the predictions from communication experts working on the newspaper of the future. Pictured as part of broader home based media and entertainment systems, computer newspapers would unite print and broadcast reporting, offering news and analysis with video images of news events. Most of the technology is available now, but convincing more people that they don't need paper to read a newspaper is the next step. But resistance to computer newspapers may be stronger from within journalism. Since it is such a cultural change, it may be that the present generation of journalists and publishers will have to die off before the next generation realize that the newspaper industry is no longer a newspaper industry. Technology is making the end of traditional newspapers unavoidable. Despite technological advances, it could take decades to replace news-print with computer screens. It might take 30 to 40 years to complete the changeover because people need to buy computers and because newspapers have established financial interests in the paper industry. Question: It might take 30 or 40 years for computer newspapers to replace traditional newspapers because _ . Yes or no, is the answer "both the general people and professional journalists are against them"?
Ans:
No