Article: Our children feel stressed out by an educational system that actually uses stress as an educational technique. It's a constant pressure of homework deadlines,essays and exams. And our children are told at a young age that failing a test means that they are failures in life. They'll end up nowhere if they don't pass this or that exam. Our educational system is based on a very Western idea that life is a struggle and you'd better measure up. It's survival of the fittest. While there is some truth to this,not as much as people think. Our ancestors didn't develop a constant stress environment. Back then,stress came quickly and was over quickly,it wasn't like the stress of modern education. Stress was originally just a shortterm biological response to danger;however,the constant stress of modern education rarely stops. It's long term,at least ten years and usually more. Recent research has shown that the neurological response to stress is the same response that is found in depression. So,what's the solution? A number have been proposed,including but not limited to the following. _ .Exercise consumes energy that would otherwise build up in the stress response and could cause physical and mental problems. Teach relaxation exercises. Allowing the mind and body to relax cuts off the stress response and reduces the neurological fatigue ,enabling the individual to recover at least somewhat. Pay attention to thinking. Training the stressed student to pay attention to his or her own mind to a point where he or she is sufficiently aware to shut off the stress response when necessary. Of course,there's a logical answer to the problem. Just rearrange our teaching methods to encourage,rather than prevent,the natural curiosity and joy in learning that we are all born with. This would remove the stress and probably cut learning time in half. Question: Which of the following is the best for the blank? Yes or no, is the answer "Make sure that kids get exercise."?
Yes

Article: On 17 March 2003, Robin Cook, Leader of the House of Commons and former Foreign Secretary, resigned from the Cabinet in protest against the coming war in Iraq. His resignation speech inspired the first long applause in the history of the House and marked the end of the ministerial career of one of Labor's most brilliant politicians. For the previous two years, Robin Cook kept a diary, a personal record of the life of Labor's second term, a diary that forms the center of the narrative . The Point of Departureis Robin Cook's plain account of this extraordinary period in our political history, the most important political publication of the decade. Though surprised by his abrupt dismissal as Foreign Secretary, he became determined to bring about some changes in Parliamentary democracy that he believed was essential if Parliament was to move into the 21stcentury. As Tony Blair told him, "This is the job for you." Drawing on first-hand experiences in the Commons and the Cabinet, of encounters in conferences, and late night conversations, we follow his gathering disillusionment as the political compass of the government changes to directions which he believes to be completely mistaken: from its failure about Lords reform and its unwillingness to provide leadership for social change, to a foreign policy which has led us away from our responsibility in Europe, into closer relationship with the most right-wing government in American history, and participation in Bush's war on Iraq. This is the story of a government in power and the tensions between those who govern. But above all it is a story of a politician who truly wanted to bring democracy closer to the people, but who saw a government increasingly separated from the values of himself and his party, and who developed a growing belief that on Iraq, its position was morally, diplomatically and politically wrong. Robin Cook first entered Parliament as MP for Edinburgh Central in 1974. He held a number of senior positions in Opposition -- Shadow Foreign... Question: Robin Cook resigned from his post because he _ . Yes or no, is the answer "couldn't accept the government's decision to join in the coming war in Iraq"?
No

Article: Observer 2007-03-28 13:54 Nothing could be more shameful for McDonald's and KFC. They are violating labour's rights. The government must immediately bring the guilty to justice. A stricter government inspection system must be enforced to protect the workers. Nathan 2007-03-28 21:39 It is known that McDonald's and KFC and other fast-food restaurants pay the lowest wage they possibly can to get their employees. I think it's kind of funny that these two restaurants have not yet set up unions. It is also known that _ also take every possible measure e(legal, and sometimes illegal) to prevent their employees from forming or joining unions. I think it is high time that government enforced the law that they have made. Cushman 2007-03-28 22:32 The deepest reason is that China has a large population. If you complain that the pay is very low, the boss will tell you that can go to other places and that there are a lot of people waiting for the job. Today finding a job is not very easy, so you don't have many choices, and you have to face the reality. Chip 2007-03-29 20:33 If wages were too low, people wouldn't work for them, but they do, so it proves the wages are reasonable. Sure, they could raise the wages, but why should they? The workers are still working, still willing to show up on time, and it keeps costs lower. Were they to raise wages, they would have to FIRE more workers, and the price of burgers would go up. Then people wouldn't buy them, then McDonald's would once again FIRE more workers because of a reduced demand, and you'd be back in the same boat, just with less people working. Question: In the opinion of Cushman, the key to the problem is that _ . Yes or no, is the answer "China has too large a population"?
Yes

Article: There are two ways to save money traveling. The first way is to get _ on the specific things you want. There is a limitation to this type of approach (,) though. If you find the lowest price on the best hotel in Honolulu at the height of the season, you will save money, but still have a very expensive vacation. Trying to get exactly what you want will generally be an expensive proposition, in travel and in life. The other approach is to be a true opportunist. This will be difficult for some of you, and entirely unacceptable to others. Nonetheless ,the travelers who get to travel the most, go to the widest variety of places, learn the most and do the most, are the opportunists. This will be true until you are so wealthy that you have no monetary (;)limits. The first time I went to Ecuador, I went there because it was cheap. If it wasn't, I would have had a great time--somewhere else. The trip lasted a month, and cost $1045, which included airfare and even the $130 fee for a guide to take me to the top or glacier covered Mount Chimborazo. I cut the cost by taking a bus from my home in Michigan to Miami, and back again when I returned from Ecuador. The round-trip ticket cost $158. The round-trip flight to Quito from Miami was only $256, because it was a courier (,) flight, which meant I signed for some luggage(car parts), and could only take carry-on luggage. Never did I feel deprived, or bored. I had a great time, eating wherever it was cheap and clean, doing all sorts of inexpensive, but interesting things, and traveling across the country to climb Chimborazo. I also met and fell in love with my wife Ana. Being an opportunist means you'll have just as much variety, and probably almost everything you want--eventually. You just have to stop trying to get exactly what you want exactly when you want it. If the guide that took me up Chimborazo hadn't dropped his price from $200 to $130, I would have spent $2 for a bus and gone hiking on EI Altar, another great Andean mountain. That would have left me with... Question: The return tickets from his hometown to Quito cost the author _ . Yes or no, is the answer "$414"?
No