Article: One of the most striking findings of a recent questionnaire in the UK is that of the people interviewed, one in two believes that it is becoming more difficult to meet someone to start a family with. Why are many people finding it increasingly difficult to start and keep close relationships? Does modern life really make it harder to fall in love? Or are we making it harder for ourselves? It is certainly the case today that nowadays couples benefit in different ways from relationships. Women no longer rely upon partners for economic security or status. A man doesn't expect his wife to be in sole charge of running his household and raising his children. But perhaps the knowledge that we can live perfectly well without a partnership means that it takes much more to persuade people to abandon their independence. In theory, finding a partner should be much simpler these days. Only a few generations ago,your choice of soul mate was limited by geography, social convention and family tradition. Although it was never clear, many marriages were essentially arranged. Now those barriers have been broken down. You can approach a builder or a brain surgeon in any bar in any city on any given evening. When the world is your oyster , you surely have a better chance of finding a pearl. But it seems that the traditions have been replaced by an even tighter restriction:the limitation of choice. The expectations of partners are made greater to an unmanageable degree:good looks, impressive salary, kind to grandmother, and so on. There is no room for error in the first impression. We think that a relationship can be perfect. If it isn't,it is intended to be thrown away. We work to protect ourselves against future heartache and don't put in the hard emotional labor needed to build a strong relationship. Twelve-hour work at the office makes relaxed after-hours dating difficult. The cost of housing and child-raising creates pressure to have a stable income and career before a life partnership. Question: People don't bother to date because _ . Yes or no, is the answer "it takes them too much energy to work"?
No

Article: Do you suppose Darwin, one of the greatest scientists of all time, really did fools' experiments? Or did he do experiments that were so simple and basic that other people just thought they were foolish? Sometimes, people think they already know the answer to a question or the solution to a problem. Sometimes, they really do know an answer or a solution, but without thinking they are important. Charles Darwin didn't settle for just thinking he knew something. And, he believed all things could be important however simple they seemed to be. Suppose you drop sheets of paper that are of exactly the same size and shape. If you drop them at the same time in the same place, they will fall in the same way. Now make one of the sheets of paper into a tight little ball and let it drop along with the other sheets. What happens? You have done an experiment that is so simple that you might think it couldn't be worth anything. But this simple experiment is important. It explains part of our present day understandings of physics ideas that were worked out long ago by Galileo and Newton. And these understandings set aside some of ancient Greek physics. Scientist sometimes stops to look at very simple things and to think very hard about them. Even the simplest idea, which we might think is foolish, can shake the foundations of science. Question: Which one of the following is TRUE? Yes or no, is the answer "According to some people Darwin did foolish experiments."?
Yes

Article: With only about 1, 000 pandas left in the world, China is desperately trying to clone the animal and save the endangered species . That's a move similar to what a Texas A & M University researchers have been undertaking for the past five years in a project called "Noah's Ark". Noah's Ark is aimed at collecting eggs, embryos , semen and DNA of endangered animals and storing them in liquid nitrogen . If certain species should become extinct, Dr. Duane Kraemer, a professor in Texas A & M's College of Veterinary Medicine, says there would be enough of the basic building blocks to reintroduce the species in the future. It is estimated that as many as 2,000 species of mammals, birds reptiles will become extinct in over 100 years. The panda, native only to China, is in danger of becoming extinct in the next 25 years. This week, Chinese scientists said they grew an embryo by introducing cells from a dead female panda into the egg cells of a Japanese white rabbit. They are now trying to implant the embryo into a host animal. The entire procedure could take from three to five years to complete. "The nuclear transfer of one species to another is not easy, and the lack of available(capable of being used) panda eggs could be a major problem," Kraemer believes. "They will probably have to do several hundred transfers to result in one pregnancy (having a baby). It takes a long time and it's difficult, but this could be groundbreaking science if it works. They are certainly not putting any live pandas at risk, so it is worth the effort," adds Kraemer, who is one of the leaders of the Project at Texas A& M, the first-ever attempt at cloning a dog. "They are trying to do something that's never been done, and this is very similar to our work in Noah's Ark. We're both trying to save animals that face extinction. I certainly appreciate their effort and there's a lot we can learn from what they are attempting to do. It's a research that is very much needed. " Question: From the passage we know that _ . Yes or no, is the answer "about two thousand of species will probably die out in a century."?
No

Article: When we talk about intelligence,we do not mean the ability to get a good score on a certain kind of test,or even the ability to do well in school. These are at best only indicators of something larger,deeper,and far more important. By intelligence we mean a style of life,a way of behaving in various situations. The true test of intelligence is not how much we know to do,but how we behave when we don't know what to do. The intelligent person,young or old,meeting a new situation or problem,opens himself up to it. He tries to take in with mind and senses everything he can about it. He thinks about it,instead of about himself or what it might cause to happen to him. He grapples with it ly,imaginatively,resourcefully ,and if not confidently,at least hopefully;if he fails to master it,he looks without fear or shame at his mistakes and learns what he can from them. This is intelligence. Clearly its roots lie in a certain feeling about life,and one's self with respect to life. Just as clearly,unintelligence is not what most psychologists seem to suppose,the same thing as intelligence,only less of it. It is an entirely different set of attitudes. Years of watching and comparing bright children with the not-bright,or less bright,have shown that they are very different kinds of people. The bright child is curious about life and reality,eager to get in touch with it,embrace it,unite himself with it. There is no wall,no barrier,between himself and life. On the other hand,the dull child is far less curious,far less interested in what goes on and what is real,more inclined to live in a world of fantasy. The bright child likes to experiment,to try things out. He lives by the maxim that there is more than one way to skin a cat. If he can't do something one way,he'll try another. The dull child is usually afraid to try at a11. It takes a great deal of urging to get him to try even once;if that try fails,he is through. Nobody starts off stupid. Hardly an adult in a thousand,or ten thousand,could in any three years of his... Question: The writer believes that "unintelligence" is_. Yes or no, is the answer "a particular way of looking at the world"?
No