Problem:OPTIONS:
- Naughty.
- Imaginative.
- Clever.
- Foolish.

Read the following article and answer the question. Article: Looking out of the window, my son saw a tree whose branches were strongly swaying back and forth. "How does the tree move its branches like that?" He asked. Without rising from my chair, nor looking up from my book, I started to answer, "The tree is not moving the branches, son. The wind is..." But before the words were out, I _ myself. Instead I rose from my chair and moved to the window to join my son. I looked at the tree. From inside our room, from behind the window, I could neither feel nor hear the wind. I saw instead a tree with its branches silently moving and thought to myself, from inside this room, how could I possibly be sure that the branches were moving because of the wind rather than from the tree's own willing? As I stood there with my son watching the tree, I became struck by the movement of the branches, the shimmer of the leaves. My mind quieted and I became less sure myself of what was causing the branches to move. Was it the wind, or was it some expressive, independent movement of the tree? "I see what you mean," I said to my son. "The movement of the tree is very beautiful." "Do you think the tree is dancing?" asked my son. "Why would it be dancing?" I asked. "Maybe it is happy because the sun is shining," he said. "Perhaps," I said. "Or because it's spring," he added, "and it's not cold any more." "Perhaps," I said. As we continued to watch the tree together, I, too, began to appreciate the dance of the tree. I enjoyed the movement and sway of the branches, seeing little nuances that I hadn't noticed before. There seemed to be a rhythm to the movement, first strong and forceful, then light and gentle, then more vigorous, sometimes nearly violent. "Are trees alive?" my son asked. "Yes, they are alive. Why do you ask?" "Because this tree looks happy," he answered. "Can a tree be happy or sad?" "What do you mean?" I asked. "In the winter, trees seem sad," he said. "Their branches hang down, and they look cold and lonely. But now with the leaves on the tree and the sun shining and the... Question: What do you think of the boy? Answer:
****
A: Imaginative.

Problem:OPTIONS:
- A Scientific Research
- Making Invisible Ink
- How to Make a Spy
- A Classroom Experiment

Read the following article and answer the question. Article: Invisible ink has fascinated kids for generations. You might think that it would be difficult to make, but it's not. All you'll need for this experient is some milk; some white paper; a clean cotton swab or small, clean paintbrush; the kitchen stove; and help from an adult. The most difficult part of this mini-project is choosing the message that you'll write with your invisible ink. Maybe you'll want to pretend that you're a spy on a secret mission, writing messages that would lead to big, big trouble if they were discovered. Choose your words carefully. All you need to do is, using the brush of cotton swab, write your message with milk on the paper. Don't use a lot of milk and soak the paper. Use just enough to make a thin coating. Once you've finished writing, ask the adult who's helping you to turn on the kitchen stove to a low heat. Very carefully, using kitchen mitts ,hold the paper about a foot above the warm burner. If you don't see results, you may have to make the burner a little hotter. Do not, however, hold the paper low over the burner. As the paper heats up, your message will become brown and you'll be able to see what was written. You want to know why? It's because chemical compounds in the milk have a low burning point. When the paper gets warm, those compounds will heat up and trun brown, while the paper will be unaffected. You also can try this experiment with other liquids, such as orange juice, lemon juice, vinegar, and apple juice. Just be sure to follow all safety rules and have an adult around to help you. Question: What is probably the best title for the passage? Answer:
****
A: Making Invisible Ink

Problem:OPTIONS:
- Ecology and economics are not mixed together
- Human economy isn't recognized as parts of nature
- The environment has both resources and wastes
- Diagrams connect firms, households and the government

Read the following article and answer the question. Article: Cowboy or spaceman? A dilemma for a children's party, perhaps. But also a question for economists, argued Kenneth Boulding, a British economist, in an essay published in 1966. We have run our economies, he warned, like cowboys on the open grassland: taking and using the world's resources, confident that more lies over the horizon. But the Earth is less a grassland than a spaceship--a closed system, alone in space, carrying limited supplies. We need, said Boulding, an economics that takes seriously the idea of environmental limits. In the half century since his essay, a new movement has responded to his challenge. "Ecological economists", as they call themselves, want to revolutionise its aims and assumptions. What do they say--and will their ideas achieve lift-off? To its advocators, ecological economics is neither ecology nor economics, but a mix of both. Their starting point is to recognise that the human economy is part of the natural world. Our environment, they note, is both a source of resources and a sink for wastes. But it is ignored in conventional textbooks, where neat diagrams trace the flows between firms, households and the government as though nature did not exist. That is a mistake, say ecological economists. There are two ways our economies can grow, ecological economists point out: through technological change, or through more intensive use of resources. Only the former, they say, is worth having. They are suspicious of GDP, a crude measure which does not take account of resource exhaustion, unpaid work, and countless other factors. In its place they advocate moreholistic approaches, such as the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), a composite index that includes things like the cost of pollution, deforestation and car accidents. While GDP has kept growing, global GPI per person peaked in 1978: by destroying our environment we are making ourselves poorer, not richer. The solution, says Herman Daly, a former World Bank economist and eco-guru, is a "steady-state" economy, where the use of... Question: According to ecological economists, what is the mistake existing in conventional textbooks? Answer:
****
A:
Human economy isn't recognized as parts of nature