I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: On May 23rd the United States Department of Agriculture will meet to discuss the pressing topic of wild pigs. These beasts, which number 6 million or so, are an increasing bother. At their worst, they can damage crops, spread diseases, attack humans and kill farm animals. And things are getting worse: a study show that they are likely to double in number over the next 3 years. Why is it so hard to control wild pigs? Introduced to America in the 16th century, and related to the wild pigs found in Europe, wild pigs can be found in 75% of all states. No single law exists to control them and regulations differ between states: while in Missouri they can only be shot if met by chance, in Texas hunting is actively encouraged. A "pork chopper" law allows Texan hunters to shoot wild pigs from helicopters, and some people in Louisiana have even built their own pighunting drone . As well as being popular with hunters, wild pigs are cheaper for game raisers to breed than deer. In Michigan and Pennsylvania suggested bans on the private breeding of pigs for hunting have caused quarrels between game raisers and wildlife officials. Wild pigs' double nature----considered pests by farmers, but valued by hunters----makes it hard to pass laws to control them. Two other factors also contribute. Nearly 70% of land in America is privately owned. And it is difficult for lawmakers to impose breeding and hunting laws on private landowners. Secondly, it is hard to define a wild pig. In some states, laws are being introduced to redefine the term "wild animal" to keep out wild pigs. This is good news for those raising pigs for hunting, but less are to those who consider them pests whose number should be limited. Meanwhile, discussions continue over how to deal with this problem. Question: Why do the game raisers prefer raising wild pigs to deer? Options: A: It's difficult to raise deer. B: Wild pigs are in large numbers. C: Deer are not popular with hunters. D: They can benefit more from wild pigs.
C

I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: The Nobel Prizes in physiology or medicine, physics and chemistry are the most respected prizes in science. But talk to scientists in private, and many will complain why (besides jealousy, perhaps) are some scientists unhappy with the Nobels? One reason is that the committees can often be slow to recognize achievement. Alfred Nobel specified in his will that the prizes should reward work done in the previous year. But experience soon showed that this was risky, as medals were given out for discoveries that later proved questionable. So a degree of caution is probably advisable. Sometimes, though, it can lead to strange results. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, for instance, had to wait until 1983 to win a prize for work he had done in the 1930s on the structure of stars. However, Albert Einstein never won a prize for his theory of relativity. Even though some pretty suggestive evidence had been produced by Arthur Eddington in 1919, relativity, which has later passed every experimental test ever thrown at it, was still considered somewhat risky and obscure. Another criticism concerns the tradition that no more than three people can share a prize. Science is rarely this clear-cut. Take this year's physics prize, which recognised Peter Higgs for predicting the existence of the mass-bestowing particle that now bears his name. Dr Higgs was only one of several people with a claim. Two other teams---- Rober Brout and Francois Englert, as well as Gerald Guralnik, Carl Hageh and Tom Kibble----- submitted papers on the same idea to the same journal that published Dr Higgs's work, all within a few months of each other. Science often works like this, with different people coming up with similar ideas at similar times. In the event, the committee decided to honour Dr Engler (Brout is dead, therefore unqualified), whose paper was earlier than Dr Higgs's but did not explicitly predict a particle, over Dr Guralnik and his collaborators, who were more comprehensive but published a few weeks later. Question: According to the passage why some of the scientists are unhappy with the Nobels? Options: A: because usually the Nobels award work done in the previous year. B: just because they envy those who have won the Nobles. C: because different people often come up with similar ideas at similar times. D: because the Nobles are quite possibly slow to recognize achievement
D

I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: Mail lay scattered across the kitchen table. I couldn't put off sorting through it any longer. I checked the envelopes, putting aside the ones addressed to my husband. It had been over three years since Bob had died. To friends and family it looked like I had moved past the worst of my sorrow. I took care of my house, socialized and kept up with community. On the outside everything appeared to be normal. But inside I was anything but I worried I would never get better, never be myself again. They say sorrow has no set time limit, but I was so tired of feeling empty and hopeless. My sorrow was sharp and fresh as ever. It was like a wall of pressure in my chest, pressing my heart. I picked up a piece of Bob's mail and held it out to tear in half, but stopped myself from cutting up the envelope. The letter was from an organization that funded a Haitian orphanage called _ . Its founder, Carol Hawthorne, had given a presentation at our church. Bob and I had donated, and Bob ended up on the mailing list to receive the newsletter with updates on the children. I hadn't read one since Bob died. But just three months before, in January 2012, the country had been hit by a terrible earthquake. In my depressed state, it hadn't even occurred to me to wonder whether the orphanage had survived. I opened the newsletter and was surprised to find out that My Father's House was still standing. Of course now it was more crowded than ever. At the bottom of the page was an announcement about an upcoming trip to visit the orphanage in person. "I should go." The thought wouldn't leave me. I contacted Carol Hawthorne."What would I do if I go?" I asked."Build houses?" "The Haitian people there are eager to work and they know what they're doing," said Carol. "What they need are raw materials, and we provide them. We also visit with the children. We go to clinics and schools, pass out supplies. You'll be very busy, I promise!" I reserved a seat but didn't mention it to any of my friends. Just a few weeks later, I was at the airport... Question: During the three years after her husband's death, the writer _ . Options: A: kept in close touch with friends and neighbors B: just stayed at her home to take care of her house C: forgot her unhappiness completely with busy work D: lived in emptiness and hopelessness due to hardships
A