Q: Read the following article and answer the question. Article: Making an apology is not the same as making amends. Sometimes we apologize just because it's the easiest thing to do. What's actually important is to identify where we go wrong, take full responsibility for our mistakes and , if possible, try to make up for them. A recent case involving Hewlett-Packed, the US computer giant, shows the importance of presenting a sincere apology. The Chinese consumers who had bought notebook computers of certain models, which have been put on Chinese market since 2007, suffered a massive flash screen failures and overheating problems. Through investigation, Chinese AQSIQ identified these HP computers had quality problems and HP admitted this. HP made a proposal that they would extend the warranty period of such computers, but this could not satisfied the consumers. What they needed was a thorough description of the truth. HP has "sincerely" apologized. But the consumers remain angry, and say that only a product recall -- as HP has done in the past -- will prove that the apology is sincere. Another apology that fell flat on its face was that of Thierry Henry, the famous French footballer. His deliberate handball in November 2009 created the goal which knocked Ireland out of the 2010 World Cup. The incident caused great anger in the football world, and eventually Henry issued an apology. Two days later, he wrote, "I'm not the referee...but if I hurt someone I'm sorry." Better late than never, perhaps, but even then he passed the blame onto the referee! Such high-profile cases, which attract a lot of publicity often under the spotlight, but similar incidents occur in our everyday lives. Stress caused by schoolwork and tiredness can sometimes result in outbursts of anger against friends and family. Have you ever lost your temper for minor reasons? After calming down, most people are quick to realize their mistake and apologize. But it's just as important to identify what caused the error in the first place and take action to ensure it doesn't happen again. No one should hold a... Question: We can infer from the case of Thierry Henry that _ . Answer:

OPTIONS:
- it's never too late to say "I'm sorry."
- writing an apology is not a good idea
- Henry didn't identify his fault.
- the football fans were mad with Henry.

A: Henry didn't identify his fault.

Q: Read the following article and answer the question. Article: Your cell phone holds secrets about you. Besides the names and numbers that you've programmed into it, traces of your DNA remain on it, according to a new study. DNA is genetic material that appears in every cell. Like your fingerprint, your DNA is unique to you --- unless you have an identical twin. Scientists today usually analyze DNA in blood,saliva , or hair left behind at the scene of a crime. The results often help detectives identify criminals and their victims. Meghan J. McFadden, a biologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, heard about a crime in which the suspect bled onto a cell phone and later dropped the device. This made her wonder whether traces of DNA remained on cell phones --- even when no blood was involved. To find out, she and a colleague collectedflip-style phones from 10 volunteers. They collected invisible traces of the users from two parts of the phone: the outside, where the user holds it, and the speaker, which is placed at the user's ear. The scientists scrubbed(meaning "cleaned") the phones using a liquid mixture made mostly of alcohol. The aim of washing was to remove all detectable traces of DNA. The owners got their phones back for another week. Then the researchers collected the phones and repeated collecting traces on each phone once more. They discovered DNA that belonged to the phone's owner on each of the phones. Surprisingly, DNA showed up even in swabs that were taken immediately after the phones were cleaned. That suggests that washing won't remove all traces of evidence from a criminal's cell phone. So cell phones can now be added to the list of clues that can help a crime-scene investigation. Question: Which of the following is NOT mentioned in the passage? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- The reason for collecting the phones from volunteers.
- The technique of collecting DNA on the phones.
- The method of removing traces of DNA on the phones.
- The purpose of washing the cell phones.

A: The technique of collecting DNA on the phones.

Q: Read the following article and answer the question. Article: If your dog looks pleased to see you - it is probably because it loves the particular way you smell. The odour of a familiar human apparently lingers like perfume in the animal's brain - where it triggers an instinctive emotional response, research published yesterday reveals. Our scent acts on a part of the canine brain associated with reward and the strongest reactions are produced by humans that pets know best, say scientists in America. Gregory Berns, of Emory University in Atlanta, said: 'While we might expect that dogs should be highly tuned to the smell of other dogs, it seems that the "reward response" is reserved for their humans. 'When humans smell the perfume or cologne of someone they love, they may have an immediate, emotional reaction that's not necessarily cognitive. 'Our experiment may be showing the same process in dogs. But since dogs are so much more olfactory than humans, their responses would likely be even more powerful than the ones we might have. 'It's one thing when you come home and your dog sees you and jumps on you and licks you and knows that good things are about to happen. 'In our experiment, however, the scent donors were not physically present. Why do animals avoid pylons? Because they emit terrifying flashes of light that are INVISIBLE to humans. Dolphins use sponges to protect their sensitive noses while foraging for food on the sea floor 'That means the canine brain responses were being triggered by something distant in space and time. It shows that dogs' brains have these mental representations of us that persist when we're not there.' The university's experiment - the first of its type - involved 12 dogs of various breeds who underwent brain scans while five different scents were placed in front of them. The scent samples came from the subject itself, a dog the subject had never met, a dog that lived in the subject's household, a human the dog had never met, and a human that lived in the subject's household. The familiar human scent samples were taken from someone else... Question: Which of the following is true according to the passage? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- The dog's olfactory responses would likely be even more powerful than the ones we might have.
- In our experiment, the scent donors were physically present.
- Dogs reacted strongest to the scent of a familiar human even when they were there.
- Dog's brain responses were not being triggered by something distant in space and time.

A:
The dog's olfactory responses would likely be even more powerful than the ones we might have.