I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: English is fast becoming the language of science around the world, but what is its future among everyday speakers? One expert points out that the percentage of native English speakers is declining while the languages of other rapidly growing regions are being spoken by increasing numbers of people. But English will continue to remain widespread and important. However,British language scholar David Graddol says English will probably drop in dominance by the middle of this century to rank,after Chinese,about equally with Arabic,Hindi,and Urdu. "The number of people speaking English as a first language continues to rise,but it isn't rising nearly as fast as the numbers of many other languages around the world,simply because the main population group has been largely in the less developed countries where languages other than English have been spoken," he says. In a recent article in the journal Science,Mr. Graddol noted that three languages that are not near the top of the list of the most widely spoken now might be there soon. These are Bengali,Tamil,and Malay,spoken in south and southeast Asia. David Crystal,the author of The Cambridge Encycloredia of the English Laeguage, says about 1. 5 billion of the world's six billion people speak it as a second tongue compared to the 400 million native speakers. But another expert on the English language says Mr. Graddol underestimates the future of its dominance. _ but nobody quite knows what's going to happen because no language has been in this position before. " he said. Question: In David Graddol' s opinion,English will _ . Options: A: remain widespread and important B: be more important than any other language C: lose its dominant position D: die away in the near future
C

I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: Who do you think breaks the law in our society? If you believe that only tough guys commit crimes, you may have to think again. Unlike in the movies, we can't divide the world into bad guys and model citizens. _ In the same way that diseases range from the common cold to fatal forms of cancer, crimes vary in degree. For example, smoking in an elevator will inconvenience people, but much less than threatening them with a gun. In addition to breaking the law themselves, people tolerate various levels of crime. Why can we tolerate some crimes? It may be that, by seeing others do something, we accept it more easily. For instance, most people will find it easier to speed on a highway when everybody else is driving over the speed limit. When people celebrate a sports championship, if they see someone breaking store windows, they might start breaking windows themselves or even steal from the store. So the people around us influence how much law-breaking we can tolerate. We must also wonder whether seeing violence on television or reading about it in the newspapers every day makes us tolerate crime more than we should. We become used to seeing blood on the news on television, or in full color in newspapers and magazines. Because we see thousands of dead people on TV, maybe we just try to ignore the situation behind the violence. If so many citizens tolerate violence and crime, or even commit crimes themselves, it may simply be because of the human mind. Our minds may not care about specific laws. Instead, our minds may have a system of values that usually prevents us from hurting other people to improve our own lives. Yet, when it comes to respecting the rights of a mass of anonymous individuals, we might not be so responsible. While most people would not steal a wallet containing $50, they may not mind cheating on taxes, because cheating on taxes does not hurt any one person. It hurts society, but "society" remains an abstract idea that is not as real as a neighbor or a friend's friend. When we realize that so... Question: What does the author think of the people who cheat on taxes? Options: A: They take no notice of the human mind. B: They break the laws unaccepted in their minds. C: They aren't concerned about some particular laws. D: They hurt other people to improve their own lives.
C

I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: Brave Frenchman Found Half-way Around the World (NEW YORK) A French tourist highly praised for rescuing a two-year-old girl in Manhattan said he didn't think twice before diving into the freezing East River. Tuesday's Daily News said 29-year who left the spot quickly after the rescue last Saturday. He lifted the little girl out of the water after she fell off the bank at the South Street Scaport museum. He handed the girl to her father, David Anderson, who had dived in after him. "I didn't think at all," Duret told the Daily News. "It happened very fast. I reacted very fast. " Duret, an engineer on vacation ,was walking with his girlfriend along the pier when he saw something falling into the water . He thought it was a doll, but realized it was a child when he approached the river. In an instant ,he took off his coat and jumped into the water. When he reached the girl, she appeared lifeless, he said . Fortunately, when she was out of the water, she opened her eyes. Anderson said his daughter slipped off the bank when he was adjusting his camera. An ambulance came later for her, said Duret, who was handed dry clothes from cookers. Duret caught a train with his girlfriend shortly after. The rescue happened on the day before he left for France. Duret said he didn't realize his tale of heroism until he was leaving the next morning . "I don't really think I'm a hero," said Duret. "Anyone would do the same ting. " Question: What did Duret do shortly after the ambulance came? Options: A: He was interviewed by a newspaper B: He asked his girlfriend for his dry clothes C: He went to the hospital in the ambulance D: He disappeared from the spot quickly
D

I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: Even plants can run a fever, especially when they're under attack by insects or disease. But unlike human, plants can have their temperature taken from 3,000 feet away--straight up. A decade ago, adopting the infrared scanning technology developed for military purposes and other satellites, physicist Stephen Paley came up with a quick way to take the temperature of crops to determine which ones are under stress. The goal was to let farmers precisely target pesticide spraying rather than rain poison on a whole field, which invariably includes plants that don't have pest problems. Even better, Paley's Remote Scanning Services Company could detect crop problems before they became visible to the eye. Mounted on a plane flown at 3,000 feet at night, an infrared scanner measured the heat emitted by crops. The data were transformed into a colourcoded map showing where plants were running "fevers". Farmers could then spotspray, using 50 to 70 percent less pesticide than they otherwise would. The bad news is that Paley's company closed down in 1984, after only three years. Farmers resisted the new technology and longterm backers were hard to find. But with the renewed concern about pesticides on produce, and refinements in infrared scanning, Paley hopes to get back into operation. Agriculture experts have no doubt the technology works. "This technique can be used on 75 percent of agricultural land in the United States, " says George Oerther of Texas A & M. Ray Jackson, who recently retired from the Department of Agriculture, thinks remote infrared crop scanning could be adopted by the end of the decade. But only if Paley finds the financial backing which he failed to obtain 10 years ago. Question: The application of infrared scanning technology to agriculture met with some difficulties-- _ . Options: A: its high cost B: the lack of official support C: the lack of financial support D: its failure to help increase production
C