Article: Phys ed (physical education) is making a comeback as a part of the school core curriculum ,but with a difference. While group sports are still part of the curriculum, the new way is to teach skills that are useful beyond gym class. Instead of learning how to climb a rope, children are taught to lift weights, balance their diets and build physical endurance . In this way,kids are given the tools and skills and experiences so they can lead a physically active life for the rest of their life. Considering that 15 percent of American children aged 6 to 18 are overweight, supporters say more money and thought must be put into phys ed curriculum. In many cases, that may mean not just replacing the old gym-class model with fitness programs but also starting up phys ed programs because school boards often "put P.E. on the chopping block , cutting it entirely or decreasing its teachers or the days it is offered," says Alicia Moag-Stahlberg, the executive director of Action for Health Kids. The difference in phys ed programs is partly due to the lack of a national standard. "Physical education needs to be part of the core curriculum," she added. The wisdom of the new approach has some scientific support. Researchers at the University of Wisconsin have showed how effective the fit-for-life model of gym class can be. They observed how 50 overweight children lost more weight when they cycled and skied cross-country than when they played sports. The researchers also found that teaching sports like football resulted in less overall movement, partly because some reluctant students were able to sit on the bench. Another problem with simply teaching group sports in gym class is that only a small percentage of students continue playing them after graduating from high school. The new method teaches skills that translate to adulthood. Question: How many problems are mentioned in the passage with simply teaching group sports? Yes or no, is the answer "Two"?
Yes

(Question)
Article: If a city wishes to host the Olympics, it must submit a proposal to the IOC. After all proposals have been submitted, the IOC votes. If no city with the fewest votes is eliminated, the voting continues, until a majority winner is determined. Typically the Games are awarded several years in advance, allowing the winning city time to prepare for the Games. In selecting the site of the Olympic Games, the IOC considers a number of factors, and chiefly among them is which organizing committee seems most likely to stage the Games effectively. The IOC also considers which parts of the world have not yet hosted the Games. For instance, Tokyo, the host of the 1964 Summer Games, and Beijing, that of the 2008 Games, were chosen in part to popularize the Olympic movement in Asia. Because of growing importance television worldwide, the IOC in recent years has also taken into account the host city's time zone. Whenever the Games take place in the USA or Canada, for example, American television networks are willing to pay specially higher amounts for television rights because they can broadcast popular events live in the best viewing hours. Once the Games have been awarded, it is the duty of the local organizing committee----not the IOC or the NOC of the host city's country to provide them with money. This is often done with a part of the Olympic television revenues , and corporate sponsorships , tickets sales, and other smaller revenue sources. In many cases there is also direct government support. Although many cities have achieved amounts of money by hosting the Games, the Olympics can be financially risky. When the financial gains from the Games were less than expected, the city was left with large debts. Question: _ will be determined to host the Olympic Games by the IOC. Yes or no, is the answer "A majority winner in voting"?
(Answer)
No

Ques: Article: When a dirty and untidy grey cat showed up in the prison yard, I was one of the first to go out there and pet it. I hadn't touched a cat or a dog in over 20 years. I spent at least 20 minutes, knelt down behind the kitchen as the cat rolled around, relaxed. When he was expressing outwardly, I was feeling inwardly. It was an amazing bit of grace to feel him under my hand and note that I was reaching a life or another creature with something as simple as my care. Over the next few days, there were other prisoners responding to the cat. Every yard period, a group of prisoners gathered there. They stood around talking and taking turns petting the cat. These were guys you wouldn't usually find talking to each other. Several times I saw an officer in the group, not chasing people away, but just watching and seeming to enjoy along with the prisoners. Bowls of milk and water appeared along with bread, wisely placed under the edge of the dustbin to keep the birds from getting it. The cat was obviously homeless and in pretty bad shape. People said that the cat came to the right place. He's getting treated like a king. This was true, but as I watched I was also thinking about what the cat was doing for us. There was a lot of talk about what's wrong with prisons in America. We need more programs. We need more psychologists or treatment of various kinds. Some may even talk about making prisons more kind. But I think what we really need is a chance to practice our own kindness. Not receive it, but give it. After more than two decades here, I know kindness is not a value that's encouraged. It's often thought of as a weakness. Instead, the culture encourages keeping your head down, minding your own business, and never letting yourself be weak. The cat did my heart good to see the effect he had on me and the men here. By simply saying, "I need some help here", he did something important for us. He needed us. And we needed to be needed. I believe we all do. Question: The author mainly wants to tell us _ . Yes or no, is the answer "Caring Makes us Human"?
Ans: No

Article: A popular saying goes, "Sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." However, that's not really true. Words have the power to build us up or tear us down. It doesn't matter if the words come from someone else or ourselves - the positive and negative effects are just as lasting. We all talk to ourselves sometimes. We're usually too embarrassed to admit it, though. But we really shouldn't be, because more and more experts believe talking to ourselves out loud is a healthy habit. This "self-talk" helps us motivate ourselves, remember things, solve problems, and calm ourselves down. Beware, though, that as much as 77% of self-talk tends to be negative. So in order to stay positive, we should only speak words of encouragement to ourselves. We should also be quick to _ . The next time you finish a project, do well in a test, or finally clean your room, join me in saying, "Good job!" Words possess power because of their lasting effects. Many of us regret something we once said. And we remember unkind words said to us! Before speaking, we should always ask ourselves: Is it true? Is it loving? Is it needed? If what we want to say doesn't pass this test, then it's better left unsaid. Words possess power: both positive and negative. Those around us receive encouragement when we speak positively. We can offer hope, build self-esteem and motive others to do their best. Negative words destroy all those things. Will we use our words to hurt or to heal? The choice is ours. ks5u Question: Which of the following statements would the author agree to? Yes or no, is the answer "It is better to think twice before talking to others."?
Yes