Article: During the last twenty years there has been increasing concern with the quality of the environment. Along with air and water pollutions, noises pollution has been recognized as a serious pollutant. As noise levels have risen, the effects of noise have become more apparent. Noise is defined as "unwanted sound". Causes of noise pollution include traffic, aircraft, rock bands, barking dogs, televisions, garbage trucks, and noise from neighbors, voices, alarms, and watercrafts. Studies show that over forty percent of Americans are disturbed at home or lose sleep because of noise pollution. Noise has bad effects on people and the environment. Noise causes hearing loss, interferes with human activities at home and work, and is in various ways dangerous to people's health and well being. When we think, talk, listen to music, or sleep, we need quiet. Even low levels of noise can be annoying or frustrating. Sudden increases in volume can make sounds annoying. The quieter the background is, the more _ a noise can be. Noise can also make instructions or warning unclear, resulting in accidents. Louder noise bursts can be more disruptive .Continued stress can lead to high blood pressure, which is the major cause of some diseases. Long exposure to noise levels above eight-five decibels can damage inner cells and lead to hearing loss. Noise can result in the involuntary fear response and can cause adrenaline to be pumped into the bloodstream, the heart rate to quicken, muscles to tense, breathing to increase, and the digestive system to slow down. Local government has the responsibility to fight noise pollution. For example, it can regulate the speed of trains through their community. On the other hand, a responsible citizen will never make noise pollution wherever he is. Question: According to the text, noise pollution may be caused by _ . Yes or no, is the answer "vehicles and animals"?
No

Article: It is hard to predict how science is going to turn out , and if it is really good science, it is impossible to predict. If the things to be found are actually new, they must be unknown in advance You cannot make choices on this matter. You either have science or you don't and if you have it you have to accept the surprising and disturbing pieces of information, along with the neat and useful bits. The only solid piece of scientific truth about which I feel totally confident is that we don't know enough about nature. Indeed, I regard this as the major discovery of the past hundred years of biology. It is, in its way, a clear piece of news. It would have amazed the brightest minds of the 18th century to be told by any of us how little we know and how strange seems the way ahead . In earlier times, they either pretended to understand how things worked or simply made up stones to give answers. Now that we have begun exploring seriously, we are catching sight of how huge the questions are, and how far from being answered. Because of this, we are sorry. It is not so bad being ignorant if you are totally ignorant; the hard thing is knowing in some detail the reality of ignorance, the worst spots and here and there the not-so-bad spots, but no true light at the end of the tunnel nor even any tunnels that can yet be trusted. But we are making a beginning, and there ought to he some satisfaction. There are probably no questions we can think up that can't he answered, sooner or later. Within our limits, we should be able to work our way through to all our answers, if we keep at it long enough, arid pay attention. Question: The writer believes that sooner or later _ . Yes or no, is the answer "man can find solutions to whatever questions concerning nature he can think up."?
No

Article: When the Japanese attacked America's ships at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, they did it secretly. The makers of the movie Pearl Harbor have behaved differently. The noise about Pearl Harbor, made by Disney,has reached its highest point with its premiere before the movie opens in cinemas across the US at the start of the Memorial Day holiday weekend, a time to recall national heroes who sacrificed their lives on the battlefield. As Ben Affleck is the main star, the movie seems sure to become a success in the United States at least. At almost three hours in length, it promises to be a good old Hollywood movie. There is a love story. Affleck and his co-star, Josh Hartnett, both fall in love with the navy nurse, Kate Beckinsale and, of course, there is much human courage and love of country. It's certain that Disney will be accused of "changing" history. The showing of actual events in a movie always causes arguments. Bits of the story are deliberately not mentioned in the movie. It does not address the theory held by some historians that President Franklin Roosevelt knew about Japan's intention to attack the ships in Pearl Harbor.It is said he did nothing, as he was aware that such a blow would allow him to take America into the Second World War. Japan remains sensitive about being accused of wartime atrocities . And Disney is sensitive about its business in Japan, where it has a theme park. Not all the reviews of the movie have been full of praise. A reviewer for Newsweek, who was given an early preview, acknowledged that the 40-minute sequence showing the attack itself was powerful. The attack comes quite late in the movie, however, and the reviewer was less impressed with the characters and the love story. "Almost every line of the dialogue sounds like it comes from an old movie, " the reviewer wrote. Question: According to the passage, what does the reviewer for Newsweek think of the movie? Yes or no, is the answer "The characters and the love story are less attractive."?
Yes