Article: Microwaves may be great at warming up food, but what about warming people? Using microwaves to directly heat owners of a room would save much of the energy wasted by heating walls and furniture. And despite popular ideas about microwaves, this technique would be safe, according to Charles R. Burlier of the Microwave Research Center in Marlborough, New Hampshire. Low-power microwaves only penetrate the skin (low-power microwave penetration in a ham is about 0.2 inches, for example) and with no negative effects. To test this idea, Buffler subjected himself to microwaves in a special room using a standard 500-watt, 2459 MHz magnetron . He found that a person will start to feel warmth at about 20 milliwatts per square centimeter (mw. / sq. cm. ) ; a satisfactory feeling of warmth occurs between 35 and 50mw. / sq. cm. By comparison, a person standing in noonday summer sun feels the amount of 85 mw. / sq. cm. And a frozen meat pie in your microwave oven receives about 1000 mw. / sq. cm. In houses of the future, each room could be provided with its own magnetron, says Buffler. When you stepped into the living room, for example, a motion detector would turn on the magnetron, filling the room with low-power microwaves. In the same way that a microwave oven heats up a hamburger, but not the plate it's on, you would feel warmth from the microwaves without changing the temperature of your coffee table. (You could, however, make your favorite easy chair even more comfortable by treating it with a radiation-absorbing chemical.) While it might be some time before homeowners are comfortable enough with the idea to set up whole-body microwave heaters in houses, Buffler says microwaves may attract livestock farmers. Lambs that are born outdoors in winter, for example, are frequently lost to cold. Microwaves could warm the lambs safely and quickly. Question: Which of the following statements about microwave heaters would Buffler most probably agree with? Yes or no, is the answer "Perhaps microwave heaters will be first used by livestock farmers, who wish to protect their lambs in winter."?
No

Article: English is the native or official language of one-fifth of the land area of the world. It is spoken in North America, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. In South Africa and India it is one of the official languages. More people study English than any other language. In many countries, the textbooks in universities are in English. Many university classes are taught in English even though the native language is not English. English is the language of international communication. It is the language of international business, research, and science. More than three-fourths of the world's mail is written in English. More than half of the scientific research journals are in English. Most other languages have borrowed many English words. Why did English become the international language? In the middle of the nineteenth century, French was the international language. The Britain became very powerful in the world. England started colonies in North America and India in the seventeenth century. By 1900 England also had colonies in other parts of Asia, Africa and the South Pacific. The people in the colonies had to use English. Slowly it became more important than French internationally. After the Second World War, the United States became very powerful, and even more people began to learn English. Is English a good international language? It has more words than any other language. The grammar is simpler than in other major languages. However, English spelling is difficult. Foreigners all have trouble spelling English. So do native speakers! Since 1880, people have invented over fifty artificial (not natural) languages. No one speaks them as a native language. However, none of them has ever become popular. Some people don't want to study English, but it is the international language. There is no way to change that now. Question: English is the native language of _ . Yes or no, is the answer "Australia"?
No

Q: Article: It can be hard to encourage families of preschoolers to turn off the TV,but there are plenty of highquality shows that promote learning and positive relationships rather than violence,researchers noted. "Although clearly kids watch too much,what's more worrying is that they watch poor quality shows," said Dr Christakis,the lead researcher on the new study from the University of Washington in Seattle.His former survey of parents of threeto fiveyearold children showed the kids often watched violent cartoons and movies that are "totally inappropriate". For their study,he and his colleagues randomly divide 565 preschoolers into two groups.In one group,parents recorded notes about kids' normal TV viewing,without receiving any guidelines to reduce or change those habits.In the other group,researchers made visits and calls and sent monthly newsletters encouraging parents to replace violent TV with educational programming.After six and 12 months,parents reported their kid's angry,aggressive or anxious behaviors on a questionnaire.At both time points,children in the TV intervention program had slightly fewer problems than those in the comparison group.Boys in lowincome families seemed to benefit most from the change in programming,the researchers found. "The point is,this is something that is as effective as other things we do to try to guide behavior in children,and it's fairly simple," Christakis said. Another study published in Pediatrics found the more TV kids and teens watched,the more likely they were to have a crime or other problems in society.Children may imitate violence they see--or more time in front of the TV could simply mean less communication with peers and families,and worse performance in school. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends kids watch no more than one to two hours of highquality programming each day.Researchers agreed parents should be mindful of what exactly their young kids are watching on TV as well."It's not just about turning the TV off,it's about changing the channel,"... Question: For Christakis,what is more concerning? Yes or no, is the answer "TV shows being of poor quality."?
A: No

(Q).
Article: The interview has been going on for about 20 minutes and everything seems to be going well.Then, suddenly, the interviewer asks an unexpected question, "Which is more important, law or love?" Job applicants in the West increasingly find themselves asked strange questions like this.And the signs are that this is beginning to happen in China. Employers want people who are skilled, enthusiastic and devoted.So these are the qualities that any reasonably intelligent job applicant will try to show no matter what his or her actual feelings are.In response, employers are increasingly using the questions which try and show the applicant's true personality. The question in the first paragraph comes from a test called the Kiersey Temperament Sorter.It is an attempt to discover how people solve problems, rather than what they know.This is often called aptitude test. According to Mark Baldwin of Alliance, many job applicants in China are finding this type of questions difficult."When a Chinese fills out an aptitude test, he or she will think there is a right answer but they may fail because they try to guess what the examiner wants to see." This is sometimes called the prisoner's dilemma .Applicants are trying to act cleverly in their own interest, but they fail because they don't understand what the interviewer is looking for.Remember that in an aptitude test, the correct answer is the honest answer. Question: What is the purpose of the passage? Yes or no, is the answer "To give a piece of advice to job interviewees."?
(A).
No