Article: A listener from Brazil recently wrote to us asking for some advice. He's planning a trip to the United States, and wanted to know about the best places to travel in America. Today, we tell about the most popular places to visit in the country, and hear about what makes them so appealing. Each of the 50 states in America has interesting things to offer visitors, but some are more popular than others. Washington, D.C. is famous for its historical places, like the White House and the Lincoln Memorial. Visitors to Los Angeles, California can see the Hollywood Walk of Fame or shop the stores on Rodeo Drive where they may see a star or two. The Grand Canyon in Arizona appeals to hikers, climbers and nature lovers, as does Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. Trip Advisor is a website where people can write reviews about their travel experiences. There are also ratings for hotels, restaurants, and places people have visited around the world. Every year, Trip Advisor makes a list of the top 25 cities to visit in the United States. The results are based on the opinions of visitors to the website. America's major cities are still the most popular destinations for visitors. This is probably because of the good quality of services they provide tourists. "They do a great job of giving travelers what they want when they're on vacation. I think they kind of cater to every type of traveler need. So whether you're traveling alone, you're traveling for business, you're traveling with your family - whatever it is, those destinations are really tuned in to delivering amazing experiences and just a lot of different opportunities when you're there." said Brooke Ferencsik, a tourist from Germany. Question: Which of the following can be the best title for the passage? Yes or no, is the answer "America's Major Tourist Attractions"?
No

Article: Teenagers who drink alcohol are at higher risk of becoming victims of violence, a Cardiff University study has found. A team from the School of Dentistry's Violence Research Group studied drinking habits in children aged 11 - 16 in England. They found not only a link between drink and violence but also that children who drank were more likely to be hit, even if they weren't violent themselves. The researchers are now calling for measures to prevent alcohol misuse to reduce injury risk. Current policy focuses on reducing aggression but this research shows that there should be equal effort to reduce victimization. More than 4,000 children were surveyed at 13 schools at four local authorities in the North, the Midlands, London, and the South. The study found that 25% of 11-year-olds were drinking monthly and 3.6% daily, with 12.8% admitting to getting drunk 3 to 5 times a year. By the age of 16, 40% were drinking weekly and 6.2% were drinking every day. The research also showed 22.6% of 16-year-olds were getting drunk more than 21 times a year. The study, which has just been published in the Journal of Adolescence, found a strong link between frequency of drinking and frequency of hitting other people. However, children who reported drinking monthly were also three times more likely to be hit. Adolescents who drank but didn't get into fights were more likely to be hit than those who did fight. Professor Jonathan Shepherd, who led the research, said a lot of previous alcohol-related violence work had focused on the offenders rather than the victims. His team is calling for more prevention work from parents and teachers in the first two years of secondary school by taking advantage of the "teachable moment", that is, immediately after a student has missed school because of drunkenness. Previous work by Professor Jonathan Shepherd has shown drinkers may be more at risk of violence because of reduced physical co-ordination, poor decision-making in threatening situations and isolation while out late at night. He... Question: Drinkers may be more at risk of violence because of all the following EXCEPT _ . Yes or no, is the answer "a higher frequency of hitting other people"?
No

Q: Article: Laws that would have ensured pupils from five to 16 received a full financial education got lost in the 'wash up'. An application is calling on the next government to bring it back. At school the children are taught to add up and subtract but, extraordinarily, are not routinely shown how to open a bank account -- let alone how to manage their finances in an increasingly complex and demanding world. Today the parenting website Mumsnet and the consumer campaigner Martin Lewis have joined forces to launch an online application to make financial education a compulsory element of the school curriculum in England. Children from five to 16 should be taught about everything from pocket money to pensions, they say. And that was exactly the plan preserved in the Children, Schools and Families bill that was shelved by the government in the so-called "wash-up" earlier this month -- the rush to legislation before parliament was dismissed. Consumer and parent groups believe financial education has always been one of the most frustrating omissions of the curriculum. As the Personal Finance Education Group (Pfeg) points out, the good habits of young children do not last long. Over 75% of seven- to 11-year-olds are savers but by the time they get to 17, over half of them are in debt to family and friends. By this age, 26% see a credit card or overdraft as a way of extending their spending power. Pfeg predicts that these young people will "find it much harder to avoid the serious unexpected dangers that have befallen many of their parents' generation unless they receive good quality financial education while at school." The UK has been in the worst financial recession for generations. It does seem odd that -- unless parents step in -- young people are left in the dark until they are cruelly introduced to the world of debt when they turn up at university. In a recent poll of over 8,000 people, 97% supported financial education in schools, while 3% said it was a job for parents. Question: A poll is mentioned to _ . Yes or no, is the answer "stress the necessity of the curriculum reform"?
A: Yes

*Question*
Article: Traffic problems are an everyday concern in many cities,including Washington,DC.A growing number of Washingtonians are turning to bicycles to get to and from work.In fact,the number of commuters who use bicycles has doubled in the city since 2007. Ralph Buehler teaches urban planning at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,popularly known as Virginia Tech.He has written a book about urban biking,called "City Cycling". He says there is a reason why urban bike tiding is now becoming more popular. "Over the last 60 to 70 years.cities in the U.S.have been adapted to the automobile." "Most cities took advantage of the money coming for the interstate highway system,from the federal government,starting in 1956.There was a 90 percent federal match so the cities only had to put up 10%.It was very tempting." In the years after World War Two,many Americans moved to suburban communities,just outside major cities,They decided to travel great distances to and from work in exchange for a home in the suburbs.Their cars became a symbol of freedom. But today,many people believe they can save money by living in the city. Greg Billing is with the Washington Area Bicyclist Association."When a person makes a change from 04 using a car to using a bike,they are saving anywhere between 8 or$9,000 a year." Ralph Buehler says governments save money when people use bicycles."Building bicycling facilities is much cheaper than building and maintaining road facilities or public transport." Washington,DC has also taken steps to protect bike riders.It approved a safe passing law and created areas on the road between cars and bikes. The United States Census Bureau says 4%of the city's workers ride to work by bike.The only city on the East Coast with more bike commuters is New York. Question: What's the best title of the text? Yes or no, is the answer "Bicycling to work in Washington,DC grows in popularity"?
**Answer**
Yes