Article: Short people, studies have shown , are more likely to have a stroke , suffer from high blood pressures and heart disease and be bullied in school . Now, researchers report that short people--at least in the past--were also more likely to die at a younger age than their taller peers. Their study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health , found that short bones have something to do with short life for more than 1,000 years. The conclusion was based on 490 sets of adult skeletal remains from an archaeological site in northeastern England , YC dating from the 9th century to about 1850 . About 55% of men and 73% of women died before the age of 45, and 39% of men and 56% of women died before age 30. The risk of death before age 30 declined as bone length increased. "This study provides evidence from an archaeological sample that long bone length is connected with age at death--those with smaller bones tend to die younger," according to Dr. D.J. Gunnell of the university of Bristol in the UK and colleagues . While it is not clear why short stature might be linked to earlier death , the researchers point out that height is _ of childhood nutrition, which may have long-lasting effect on health . "Mechanism for height-mortality associations in the past may differ from those today , for example , short stature may have increased the risk of death in childbirth and this may explain the higher risk of premature mortality in women," Gunnell and colleagues write . "However, short bones, it would appear, have always been a marker of a short life," the authors conclude. Question: The topic in this passage is probably connected with Yes or no, is the answer "social medicine"?
No

(Question)
Article: Nobody likes home economics . But restoring the program could help us in the fight against obesity and chronic diseases today. The home economics movement was founded on the belief that housework and food preparation were important subjects that should be studied scientifically. The first classes occurred in the agricultural and technical colleges that were built in the 1860s. When most departments of universities rejected women, home economics was a back door into higher education. Indeed, in the early 20th century, home economics was a serious subject When few people understood germ theory and almost no one had heard of vitamins, home economics classes offered vital information about washing hands regularly, eating fruits and vegetables and not feeding coffee to babies. However, today we remember only the fixed ideas about home economics, forgetting the movement's most important lessons on healthy eating and cooking. Too many Americans simply don't know how to cook. Our diets, consisting of highly processed foods made cheaply outside the home, have contributed to many serious health problems. In the last decade, many cities and states have tried to tax junk food heavily or to ban the use of food stamps to buy soda. Clearly, many people are doubtful about any governmental steps to promote healthy eating. But what if the government put the tools of obesity prevention in the hands of children themselves by teaching them how to cook? My first experience with home economics happened two decades ago when I was a seventh grader in a North Carolina public school. A year later, my father's job took our family to Wales, where I attended a large school for a few months. It was the first time I had ever really cooked anything. I remember that it was fun, and with an instructor standing by, it wasn't hard. Those lessons stuck with me when I first started cooking for my husband and myself after college and they still do. Teaching cooking in public schools can help solve some problems facing Americans today. The... Question: Home economics _ . Yes or no, is the answer "once offered women a. special approach to university education"?
(Answer)
No

Ques: Article: Most city parks are places where you can escape from big, ugly structures of metal and stone. The Manhattan High Line is different. Raised 25 feet above the ground, this large metal structure once supported a rail line. The line opened in 1934 to bring trains directly into factories. It was hardly used after the 1960s, and much of it was torn down. However, one part remained in a region of Manhattan called Chelsea. Chelsea was becoming high-class as restaurants, art galleries and apartments were built, but the ugly railway structure remained as _ . Everyone knew that at some time, it would have to be removed. But the High Line was not destroyed. In fact, now the old rail line serves as one of the most peaceful places in the city. It holds an elevated park, with beautiful gardens and great views of the city. The idea to turn the rail line into a park came from Joshua David and Robert Hammond. In 1999, they attended a meeting to decide how to deal with the High Line. David and Hammond were the only people at the meeting interested in saving the historical structure. Later on, when they asked railway officials to take them up to look at the High Line, they saw a mile and a half of wild flowers growing in the middle of the city, and they realized that the High Line had potential to become a park. There was growing interest in improving city centers, and so the project quickly developed and money for construction was easily collected. The first section of the High Line opened in 2009 and immediately became popular with tourists and locals alike. Each part of the park has a different atmosphere. Some areas are like balconies with wonderful city views. Where the rail line goes between buildings, trees are thickly planted. Other sections have wide lawns and walkways planted with wild flowers. Only the final section remains the way it has been for the last fifty years. Question: Why did David and Hammond originally want to save the High Line? Yes or no, is the answer "They thought it had historical value."?
Ans: Yes

Ques: Article: Environmentalists said our planet was doomed to die. Now one man says they are wrong. "Everyone knows the planet is in bad shape," thundered a magazine article last year. Species are being driven to die out at record rates, and the rivers are so poisonous that fish are floating on the surface, dead. But there's a growing belief that what everyone takes for granted is wrong: things are actually getting better. A new book is about to overturn our most basic assumptions about the world's environment. Rivers, seas, rain and the atmosphere are all getting cleaner. The total amount of forests in the world is not declining. The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg, professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, is an attack on the misleading claims of environmental groups, and the "bad news" culture that makes people believe everything is getting worse. Now the attacks are increasingly coming from left-wing environmentalists such as Lomborg, a former member of Greenpeace. The accusation is that, although the environment is improving, green groups -- with profits of hundreds of millions of pounds a year -- are using scare tactics to gain donations. Lomborg's book doesn't deny global warming -- probably the biggest environmental threat -- but destroys almost every other environmental claim with many official statistics. The Worldwatch Institute claims that "deforestation has been accelerating over the last 30 years". But Lomborg says that is simply rubbish. Since the dawn of agriculture the world has lost about 20 per cent of its forest cover, but in recent decades the forest area's depleting has come to a stop. According to UN figures, the area of forests has remained almost steady, at about 30 percent of total land area, since the 1940s. Forests in countries such as the US, the UK and Canada have actually been expanding over the past 40 years. Despite all the warnings the Amazon rainforest has only shrunk by about 15 percent. Nor are all our species dying out. Some... Question: In his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, what is Lomborg's main argument? Yes or no, is the answer "The world's environment is improving."?
Ans:
Yes