Article: If you're training for a marathon, a proper plan for water intake is important. Of course, there's the risk of dehydration . But athletes now know they can also get into trouble by drinking too much. Too much water intake can lower levels of sodium in the blood. The death of a 28-year-old woman following the Boston Marathon caught the attention of many runners and led to new research. Experts advise long distance runners to replace the liquids they sweat out. Their goal is to try to keep someone from not getting dehydrated by more than 2 percent of their body weight. One technique for deciding how much water you need is to get the exact numbers. Runners have to weigh themselves before and after a run to determine how much water they've lost. If their weight drops by more than 2 percent, they have not drunk enough water. Hyponatremia occurs when runners drink so much water that blood salt levels drop off. A study published last year tested 488 runners who completed the Boston Marathon and found 13 percent of them had dangerously low blood salt levels. The first sign that runners may notice is slightly swelling in the hands. They can't get their rings off, and then they might feel sick. They may not remember where they are. In fact, most runners get enough salt to get back to normal levels by eating just one meal after a run. Contrary to the old advice that runners should drink as much as they can to prevent dehydration, the new research has shown that the body is a remarkable machine that actually tells you via thirst when you need water. Question: What conclusion can we draw from the passage? Yes or no, is the answer "Either too much or too little of water intake is harmful."?
No

Article: About a year ago,if you had asked who Dinara Safina was,the answer would have been,"She is Marat Safin's younger sister." She was overshadowed by her wonder brother.But now she has made a name for herself:the world No.1 player in women's tennis. The 22yearold Russian overtook Serena Williams of the US for top ranking on April 20."Before,every place I go,I am Marat's sister.Nothing else,"she told New York Times."I always wanted to be myself,and now finally the results come,and people can know me as Dinara Safina." Safina has made it to two great event finals,in the 2008 French and in the 2009 Australian Open,and won a silver medal in the Beijing Olympic Games. Clearly,family isn't the only connection Safina and her brother share.Their DNA burns with competitive fire.Safin has held the distinction for years of being a hottempered player on court.When he lost his temper,he would smash a racket .Safina is as emotionally explosive as her brother.A headline in the newspaper The Australian once described her as "mad as a snake".The Sydney Morning Herald,during the Australian Open,summed up Safina's volatile emotional state with the headline--Safina goes from basket case to top of the world. It's not rare for a family to have two top tennis players.Safina's father owns a tennis academy and her mother worked as a coach."I had no choice but to become a tennis player,but I don't mind being a tennis player," Safina said. From this talented family she is also given one of her best weapons on court,her size.She is 1.82 meters tall and weighs 70kg.But it is hard work that led her to her recent success. "I hope to prove to everyone over the coming months that I deserve the honor of being world No.1,"she said. Question: Which one of the following doesn't contribute to Safina's success? Yes or no, is the answer "Her emotional explosion and volatile emotional state."?
No

Q: Article: On the old-time farm in America, there were chickens, cows, pigs and horses. But there were very few machines. Most of the work was done by the farm family. Sometimes more workmen were needed in busy seasons. Work done by horses took up 79 percent; by men, 15 percent; and machine work only took up 6 percent. Today all that has changed. On many modern farms machines now will do 96 percent of the work, while man does 3 percent. As for horses, they do 1 percent of the whole work. The children go to school by bus every morning; the parents work on the farm or in the house and other people's help is hardly needed. Their work has been replaced by a whole army of farm machines. Question: Which part of the farm work has changed most greatly? Yes or no, is the answer "Outside help."?
A: No

Article: For the most part, it seems, workers in rich countries have little to fear from globalization, and a lot to gain. But is the same thing true for workers in poor countries? The answer is that they are even more likely than their rich-country counterparts to benefit, because they have less to lose and more to gain. Traditional economics takes an optimistic line on integration and the developing countries. Openness to foreign trade and investment should encourage capital to flow to poor economies. In the developing world, capital is scarce, so the returns on investment there should be higher than in the industrialized countries, where the best opportunities to make money by adding capital to labour have already been used up. If poor countries lower their barriers to trade and investment, the theory goes, rich foreigners will want to send over some of their capital. If this inflow of resources arrives in the form of loans or portfolio investment , it will top up domestic savings and loosen the financial restriction on additional investment by local companies. If it arrives in the form of new foreign-controlled operations, FDI, so much the better: this kind of capital brings technology and skills from abroad packaged along with it, with less financial risk as well. In either case, the addition to investment ought to push incomes up, partly by raising the demand for labour and partly by making labour more productive. This is why workers in FDI-receiving countries should be in an even better position to profit from integration than workers in FDI-sending countries. Also, with or without inflows of foreign capital, the same gains from trade should apply in developing countries as in rich ones. This gains from trade logic often arouses suspicion, because the benefits seem to come from nowhere. Surely one side or the other must lose. Not so. The benefits that a rich country gets through trade do not come at the expense of its poor country trading partners, or vice versa. Recall that according to the theory,... Question: Which can be the most appropriate title for this passage? Yes or no, is the answer "Who Benefits the Most"?
Yes