Article: US track star Marion Jones owned a trophy case filled with medals. She had worldwide fame. She held the high honor of being the first female track and field athlete to win five medals at an Olympics -- the 2000 Sydney Games. But last Friday, the 31-year-old track star tearfully confessed that she had lied to fans, sports official and US federal agents about taking steroids. The five Olympic medals in her trophy case? Gone. Meaningless. The worldwide fame? Exchanged for infamy. The honor of being the first female track and field athlete to win five medals at an Olympics? Forgotten, wiped off the record books. "It is with a great amount of shame that I stand before you and tell you that I have betrayed your trust." Jones confessed. She'd posed for pictures with fans. She'd attended parties and talked about her accomplishments. But for years she'd slept --- or tried to sleep -- knowing that much of what she had done was built on a lie. Now, finally, she'd decided to tell the truth. "If she had trusted her own natural gifts and allied them to self-sacrifice and hard work, I sincerely believe that she could have been an honest champion at the Sydney Games." IAAF President Lamine Diack said over the weekend. "Instead, Mario Jones will be remembered as one of the biggest frauds in sporting history." Sadly, she won't be the last. There are still others lurking behind their trophies. They too appear to have everything. They're superstars, the envy of every young person who has played a sport. But for how long? And at what cost? Every time they look at their trophies and medals they remember that the awards really belong to someone else. Question: The writer values _ most in this passage. Yes or no, is the answer "the honesty and hard work in sports competition"?
Yes

Article: These days we hear a lot about how air pollution is changing temperatures on the earth. New evidence from a mountaintop in China now suggests that pollution can also change the amount of rain and snow that falls in some places. Usually, more rain falls in mountainous places than in flat areas upwind from the mountains. That's because air can hold a lot of water. When wind blows wet air up a mountainside, the air gets colder. This temperature change often forces water to fall as rain or snow. In recent years, however, many mountainous areas in the western United States have been getting less rain than normal. Mountains that are downwind from cities have experienced the biggest drops. Some scientists have theorized that pollution drifts from the cities into the mountains, affecting rainfall, but proving this link has been difficult. Searching for answers, a team led by a scientist from the Hebrew University went to s mountain in China called Mount Hua, which is 2,060 meters tall and lies about 120 kilometers east of the Chinese city Xi'an. Since 1954, scientists have been collecting details about rainfall, humidity , and visibility in the area. Using this data, the scientists compared rainfall on Mount Hua to rainfall in the nearest city, Huayin, on days with different levels of visibility. When the air was clear and people could see as far as 20 km, the scientists found that 65% more rain fell on the mountain than in the city. But when the air was smoggy, allowing only 8 km of visibility through the mist, the mountain received just 20% more rain than the city. The new data supports the theory that pollution affects rainfall. Some scientists believe that there are other explanations for the numbers. It's possible, for example, that natural particles in the air, rather than particles produced by pollution, are affecting visibility. Question: Why did the team led by a scientist go to Mount Hua? Yes or no, is the answer "They wanted to collect the data for their theory."?
No

Article: Sir John a British scientist who won last year's Nobel prize for medicine, said he had predicted at the time of his frog experiments that the successful cloning of a mammal would happen within 50 years.and that "maybe the same answer is appropriate" far the step to human cloning. Parents who lose children in accidents may be able to clone "copies" to replace them then. Although any attempt to clone an entire human would raise complex moral issues, the biologist claimed people would soon overcome their concerns if the technique became medically useful.Cloning was regarded with extreme doubts when it was first developed but became widely accepted after the birth of Louise Brown, the first "test tube baby" He said, "When my first frog experiment.s were done, an American reporter asked how long it will be before these things can he done in mammals or humans I said, 'Well, it could be anywhere between 10 years and 100 years-how about 50 year ?' It turned out that it wasn't far off the mark as far as Dolly was concerned.Maybe the same answer is appropriate." Sir John added that cloning a human being effectively means making an identical twin, and doctors would therefore simply be "copying what nature has already produced" The average vote on allowing parents of deceased children, who are no longer fertile , to create another using the mother's eggs and skin cells from the first child, thinking the technique was safe and effective, is 60 per cent in favor.The reasons for "no" are usually that the new child would feel they were some sort of a replacement for something. . Question: Sir John predicted the human cloning would be a reality in _ at most. Yes or no, is the answer "50 years"?
No

Article: A month after Hurricane Katrina,I returned home in New Orleans.There lay my house,reduced to waist-high rains,smelly and dirty.Before the trip,I'd had my car fixed.When the office employee of the garage was writing up the bill.she noticed my Louisiana license plate."You from New Orleans?"she asked.I said l was, "No charge."She said,and firmly shook her head when I reached for my wallet.The next day I went for a haircut,and the same thing happened. As my wife was studying in Florid,we decided to move there and tried to find a rental house that we could afford while also paying off a mortgage on our ruined house.We looked at many places,but none was satisfactory.We'd begun to accept that we'd have to live in extremely reduced circumstances for a while,when I got a very curious e-mail from a James Kennedy in California.He'd read some pieces I'd written about our sufferings forState,an online magazine and wanted to give us("noconditions attached")a new house across the lake from New Orleans.It sounded too good to be true,but I replied,thanking him for his exceptional generosity,that we had no plans to go back.Then a poet of the University of Florida offered to let his house to me while he went to England on his one-year-paid leave.The rent was rather reasonable.Imentioned the poet's offer to James Kennedy,and the next day he sent a check covering our entire rent for eight months. Throughout this painful experience,the kindness of strangers backs my faith in humanity.It's almostworthlosing you worldly possessions to be reminded that people really want to be kind when given a channel. Question: What do you know about James Kennedy? Yes or no, is the answer "He was concerned about the writer's sufferings."?
No