I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: The man who learned to fly It is publicly accepted that it was the Wright brothers that invented the plane, but actually George Cayley knew how to make a plane a century before the Wright brothers took off. If only he'd got the internal combustion engine to work. During the 18thand 19thcenturies, scientists and the public all believed that it was only impossible to fly using an artificial wing, but an act of silly deed to suggest that you could. This did not discourage the English gentleman scientist George Cayley, even though his contemporaries --- including his own son--- were embarrassed by his efforts. In 1799, Cayley carved a silver disc with one side bearing a design for the world's first aeroplane and the other illustrating the earliest published description of the aerodynamic forces on the wing that enable a plane to fly. His three--part essay Aerial Navigation, published in 1809 and 1810, was greeted with skepticism by his contemporaries. But Cayley "didn't give a rat's ass" about what they all thought, according to Richard Dyde of York University in Ontario, Canada, author of The Man Who Discovered Flight--- and with good reason. He had completed a series of experiments to back up his theories and "was convinced that everyone else was wrong". Cayley constructed increasingly excellent model flying machines, and finally invented a full-scale glider, which was flown in 1853 by his grandson, George. This pioneering work would prove inspirational to Orville and Wilbur Wright, who made the first controlled and sustained heavier-than-air human flight 50 years later. Their success was dependent on the recent invention of the internal combustion engine--- a device which Cayley, having realized its great importance, had spent many fruitless years trying to develop. Question: How many years later was George Cayley's glider flown after he first designed a plane? Options: A: A century. B: Fifty-four years. C: Ten years. D: More than a hundred years.
B
(Question)
I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: Music died here last spring, or rather, it was killed by members of the school committee who ignored the importance of music and drama as part of the high-school curriculum. The committee decided that teaching students how to take a standardized test is more important than a curriculum in which students can explore their interests in the arts as well as academics. Because the school system is running out of funding, it needs to make sure that students pass the mastery test or even more money will be lost. If students fail the state standardized test, it is not the fault of drama and music classes-- they are failing because the " academic" classes are not sufficient. It is painful to think of how many students will be discouraged from singing, acting, and playing instruments because school programs are no longer offered. Many families cannot afford private music lessons, and many potential musicians and artists may not find their calling if they are not exposed to it in school. The fact that the school committee thinks the arts are not worth the investment will certainly make some students believe the arts are not worth their time or support and the cycle will continue. Teaching for a test does not shape students into complete, well rounded people. It blocks the natural sense to create and express feelings through art-- there is more to life than the analytical thinking that math and English provide. What happens after a test? Sure, a student might graduate, but they will have limited knowledge -- certainly not a good preparation for the real world. Question: The best title of the passage can be _ . Options: A: Who Killed Music and Drama? B: Can Curriculum Go Without Music? C: Why is Music So Important? D: How To Prepare For the Real World?
(Answer)
B
Ques: I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: Honestly, since my daughter was born, I have thought a lot about how to raise a child. I once heard a story that told about when a baby was born. The story said that when a baby was born, a new master was born. The parents of that baby would become the servants. The question is: Why? Based on my observation, this phenomenon is true. Most parents who don't pay much attention to their kids have difficulties with their kids' attitude. I'll make a comparison of how two families raise their children. The first one is a family with three children. Both mother and father never say "No" to their children's demands. As a result, all of their children became stubborn and won't listen to their parents' words, "We can't." The second family educated their children strictly from one year old to high school. The parents never approved or agreed directly to give their children what they wanted. They always postponed one or two days, even if they could afford it. Due to the way their parents educated them, these children understood that if they wanted something, they had to wait or they had to make an effort first. As a result, all the kids from the second family successfully graduated from university on time. In my opinion, if we want to be successful parents and raise our children well, we have to start disciplining them when they are toddlers but not wait until they become teenagers. Question: Why did the writer give two different stories in this passage? Options: A: To help prove his opinion about raising a child. B: To list different ways that parents may take. C: To criticize some parents' foolish action. D: To prove that his way of education is right.
Ans: A
Ques: I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: Eat nuts, live longer. Researchers have found that those who eat a handful of peanuts every day significantly decrease their risk of dying from all causes compared to those who do not eat nuts. A new study concludes that all types of nuts seem to be protective. Researcher Ying Bao is with the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard University Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts. She and her colleagues looked at the impact of nut consumption by analyzing two huge studies that began in 1980 - the Nurses' Health Study, which tracks the of more than 76,000 women, and 42,000 men enrolled in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. Among the questions asked at the beginning of the studies was, 'how frequently do you eat nuts?' The information was updated every two to four years. Bao says the participants were followed for three decades. "What we observed is that people who eat more nuts are less likely to die over the next 30 years," said Bao. "So, for example, if a person eat(s) nuts once per day, that person has a 20 percent lower risk of dying." Bao says eating a handful of nuts five or more times per week was associated with a 29 percent reduced risk of dying from heart disease and an 11 percent lower risk of cancer death. A serving size is 28 grams. Nuts contain nutrients, including high quality proteins, vitamins and minerals, all of which have anti-cancer effects and may help protect the heart. Bao says researchers are planning studies to find out how nuts are beneficial to human health. The study on the health benefits of nuts was funded by the International Tree Nut Council Research and Education Foundation. Question: The passage is most probably from a journal of _ . Options: A: entertainment B: diet C: sports D: science
Ans:
B