Article: Samantha, or Sam, as her husband, John, called her, had left the doctor's house looking perfect, satisfied with her appearance. The year was 1862. It seemed that the war with the North would never come to an end. Sam's father had left as soon as possible, swearing that he'd fight for Virginia, for their land, for their new government, for God, for the South. At last, Samantha reached the house that she and John owned. It was a cold, rainy night, and she was glad to be home. She stepped into the sitting room. John rested in an armchair, reading a book. He glanced at her, put the book down, and stood, reaching his arms out for her. They kissed briefly. He put a hand to her now slightly round belly and asked, "What did the doctor say?" "He said the baby was fine and that I seemed healthy. Do you have any news?" "Surprisingly, yes." John hesitated for a moment, as if deciding how he would phrase what he was about to say, and then unwillingly continued, "I've been demanded to join the army." Sam screamed, "What?" She was near tears. "But-but we're just starting out." Her voice shook. "I thought that after two years of begging my mother to let the two of us get married that our life would finally be happy. Isn't there any way you can get out of this?" John answered, "I'm afraid not." "Please. Please, John, if you love me, please get out of this. Break a leg, fake an illness, do something." She began to sob. John comforted her, resting her head on his shoulder. "Sam." "What?" "Name the child after me; name it John or Joanna. I'll come back as soon as I can. I promise." Sam smiled into his collar bone, knowing that John lived by his word. He never broke a promise. She pressed her hand to her belly, and, unknown to her, the baby was a girl. And unknown to both of them, the promise that John had just made would be the only promise he would ever break. Question: Sam visited the doctor probably because she _ . Yes or no, is the answer "needed an examination for her baby"?
Yes

(Question)
Article: Imagine that 7 out of 10 working Americans got fired tomorrow. What would they all do? It's hard to believe it would happen. But that is what the industrial revolution did to the labor force of the early 19th century. Two hundred years ago, 70 percent of American workers lived on the farm. Today automation has eliminated all but one percent of their jobs, replacing them with machines. But these workers did not sit, doing nothing. Instead, automation created hundreds of millions of jobs in completely new fields. Those who once farmed were then working in factories that produced farm equipment, cars, and other industrial products. It may be hard to believe, but before the end of this century, _ Yes, dear reader, even you will have your job taken away by machines. In other words, robot replacement is just a matter of time, First, speedy robots being able to lift 150 pounds all day long will carry boxes, sort them, and load them onto trucks. Fruit and vegetable picking will continue to be robotized until no humans pick outside of specialty farms. Next, The work of cleaning in offices and schools will be taken over by late-night robots. The trucks will be driven by robots. We need to let robots take over. They will do jobs we have been doing, and do them much better than we can. They will do jobs we can't do at all. They will do jobs we never imagined even needed to be done, and they will help us discover new jobs for ourselves and new tasks that expand who we are. They will let us focus on becoming more human than we were. Question: What does the author want to tell us in the text ? Yes or no, is the answer "Why robots should take over our jobs."?
(Answer)
Yes

Article: We all remember seeing hitchhikers , standing by the side of the road, thumb sticking out, waiting for a lift. But it is getting rare nowadays. What killed hitchhiking? Safety is often mentioned as a reason. Movies about murderous hitchhikers and real-life crime have put many drivers off picking up hitchhikers. That no single women picked me up on my journey to Manchester no doubt reflects the safety fear: a large, strangely dressed man is seen as dangerous. But the reason may be more complex: hitchhiking happens where people don't have cars and transport services are poor. Plenty of people still hitchhike in Poland and Romania. Perhaps the rising level of car ownership in the UK means the few people lift hitchhiking are usually considered strange. Why can't they afford cars? Why can't they take the coach or the train? Three-quarters of the UK population have access to a car; many of the remainder will be quite old. The potential hitchhiking population is therefore small. Yet my trip proves it's still possible to hitchhike. The people who picked me up were very interesting-lawyer, retired surgeon, tank commander, carpenter, man who live in an isolated farmhouse and a couple living up in the mountains. My conclusion is that only really interesting people are mad enough to pick up fat blokes in red, spotted scarves. Most just wanted to do someone a good turn; a few said they were so surprised to see a hitchhiker that they couldn't help stopping. The future of hitchhiking most likely lies with car-sharing organized over the Internet, via sites such as hitchhikers. org. But for now, you can still stick your thumb out(actually, I didn't do much of that, preferring just to hold up my destination sign) and people-wonderful, caring, sharing, unafraid people-will stop. In the UK, with its cheap coaches and reasonable rail service, I don't think I'll make a habit of it. But having enjoyed it so much, I'm ready now to do a big trip across Europe and beyond. In the 1970s a female friend of my wife's hitchhiked to India.... Question: According to the author, future hitchhikers are more likely to _ Yes or no, is the answer "visit websites and find people to share cars with"?
No