Question: Article: Each year, about 10,000 to 100,000 animal species die off. They join the countless species that have gone extinct over the course of Earth's history - and extinction means forever. At least it used to. Scientists are now closing in on the ability to bring back extinct species. No, this doesn't mean the plot of Jurassic Park is going to become a reality. Researchers need DNA to bring back a species. DNA is the chemical that carries the structure for a living thing. Dinosaurs have been gone too long for any of their DNA to remain in fossils. But there's a very real chance that we will be able to bring back more recently extinct species. This could even include Ice Age animals like the woolly mammoth. In 2003, a team of Spanish and French scientists re-created the Pyrenean ibex, which had gone extinct three years earlier. The new animal didn't survive long, but scientific advances should improve the success rate. In January, Australian scientists announced that they were on their way to bringing back the gastric brooding frog. That we can bring species back doesn't mean that we should. There may be benefits to reviving a species. But there's no way to know how it will turn out. For example, would a passenger pigeon fit into its old habitat? Or might it crowd out existing species? Environmentalists worry that our ability to bring species back might cut down support for the hard work of traditional conservation. Why worry about preserving a wildlife habitat or fighting poachers if we know we can just make up for our mistakes? But those extinctions are our mistakes to correct, which may give us an obligation to do so. As businessman and environmentalist Stewart Brand recently said, "Humans have made a huge hole in nature. We have the ability now to repair some of that damage." We would do well to remember the lesson of Jurassic Park: Proceed with caution. Question: What is the probable attitude of Stewart Brand toward bringing extinct species back to life? Yes or no, is the answer "Supportive."?
Answer: No

Question: Article: Short Skirts Are Out! After decades of skimpy skirts and sleeveless tops on game days, some schools in the US are saying cheerleader uniforms will have to meet stricter dress codes when they are worn in class. In Lake County, Florida, cheerleaders with uniforms too skimpy for the code are being asked to wear long shorts or trousers under their skirts and a T-shirt under the sleeveless tops, according to a district memo. Principals at two of Lake's eight high schools - Leesburg and Lake Minneola - are not allowing the outfits in school at all. Michelle Thomas, a cheerleader at Leesburg High School, was disappointed when she learned she couldn't wear her outfit to school on game days. "It shows that we're a team just like all the other sports," she said. But the school administrators did not agree. "During the educational portion of the day, they have to meet the dress code just like every other student," said school board chairwoman Debbie Stivender, who ordered the staff to bring the outfits into line with the dress code. Bare midriffs are banned across the state by the Florida High School Athletic Association, but no state rules mention cheerleader miniskirts. Sheila Noone, a spokeswoman for cheerleading uniform company Varsity Brands, says the outfits haven't become more revealing over the last 10 years. She says that the short skirts are designed to help the girls jump and kick. "Cheerleading is athletic," Noone said. "There's a lot of jumping, so you won't want a knee-length skirt that might hamper a tie touch." Most cheerleaders were sad to hear the news, but say they'll follow the rules. Even male cheerleaders, whose pants and tops meet dress codes, chose not to wear their outfits to show unity. "I understanding, because they are kind of short," said Holly Bishop, 14, a Lake Minneola High School cheerleader, about her miniskirt. "It would have been really, really cool to wear them to school." Question: According to the new dress codes for cheerleaders in some American schools, _ . Yes or no, is the answer "cheerleaders have to make their uniforms less revealing"?
Answer: No

Question: Article: Experts do not really know when people began keeping fish as pets. But they say that people have been interested in fish for thousands of years. Some say the ancient Sumerians were the first civilization to keep fish in ponds more than four thousand years ago. The Chinese kept and studied carp and goldfish more than one thousand years ago. The ancient Romans kept eels as pets. And the Greek philosopher Aristotle made what is believed to be the first known study of sea life, including sharks and dolphins. Keeping fish at home in small water tanks called _ is extremely popular today. And everyone seems to enjoy visiting huge public aquariums that have opened around the world. By the middle of the eighteen hundreds, science had shown that plants, fish and other sea creatures could survive together under water. So it was no longer necessary to change the water in a tank for the fish to live there. This led to the building of the first public aquariums. The first aquariums opened in London, England in 1853. in the next fifteen years, other aquariums opened in Europe and the United States. By 1928, there were about forty-five public aquariums. The Monterey Bay Aquarium has been recognized as the first aquarium in the United States and it shows visitors the underwater life in the bay. The Georgia Aquarium opening in 2005 says it is the largest in the world. It has more than one hundred thousand sea animals in thirty million liters of water including two whale sharks---the world's largest fish. Another aquarium re-opened in 2005 in Camden, New Jersey. The Adventure Aquarium first opened in 1992. It spent about fifty million dollars expanding its building and improving its exhibits. Aquariums provide the public with many chances to experience life under the sea. They can be found in most areas of the world. People might even want to start an aquarium at home and join the millions of people around the world who keep fish as pets. Question: Which of the following is NOT mentioned to have kept fish as pets? Yes or no, is the answer "The ancient Indians."?
Answer:
No