Article: When you think of the tremendous technological progress we have made, it's amazing how little we have developed in other respects. We may speak scornfully of the poor old Romans because they enjoyed the seemingly excited killing that went on in their arenas . We may despise them because they mistook these goings on for entertainment. We may forgive them because they lived 2000 years ago and obviously knew no better. But are our feelings of superiority really justified? Are we any less blood-thirsty? Why do boxing matches, for instance, attract such universal interest? Don't the audience who attend them hope they will see some violence? Human beings remain as bloodthirsty as ever they were. The only difference between ourselves and the Romans is that while they were honest enough to admit that they enjoyed watching hungry lions tearing people apart and eating them alive, we find all sorts of arguments to defend sports which should have been banned long ago. It really is incredible that in this day and age we should still allow hunting or bull-fighting, that we should be prepared to sit back and watch two men punch each other in a boxing ring, that we should be relatively unmoved by the sight of one or a number of racing cars crashing and bursting into flames. Any talk of 'the sporting spirit' is merely hypocrisy . People take part in violent sports because of the high rewards they bring. Audience are willing to pay vast sums of money to see violence. A world heavyweight championship match, for instance, is front page news. Millions of people are disappointed if a big fight is over in two rounds instead of fifteen. They feel disappointment because they haven't experienced the exquisite pleasure of witnessing continuous violence. Why should we ban violent sports if people enjoy them so much? You may well ask. The answer is simple: they are uncivilized. For centuries man has been trying to improve himself spiritually and emotionally--though with little success. But at least we no longer tolerate the sight madmen... Question: What does the author want to illustrate in this article? Yes or no, is the answer "By banning the violent sports, we human beings can improve ourselves."?
No

(Question)
Article: The Canadian red and white maple leaf flag is officially called the National Flag of Canada. The Canadian flag shows a stylized red maple leaf with 11 points on a white background, with red borders down each side. The Canadian flag is twice as long as it is wide. The white square containing the red maple leaf is the same width as the flag. The red and the white used in the National Flag of Canada were proclaimed the official colors of Canada in 1921 by King George V. Although the maple leaf did not have its official status as a symbol of Canada until the announcement of the national flag in 1965, it had historically been used as a Canadian symbol, and was used in 1860 in decorations for the visit of the Prince of Wales to Canada. The 11 points on the maple leaf have no special significance. In the early days,the Royal Union Flag,or the Union Jack, was still flown in British North America. In 1925 and again in 1946, the Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King tried to get a national flag of Canada adopted, but failed. In 1964,Prime Minister Lester Pearson appointed a 15-member, all-party committee to come up with a design for a new flag. The committee was given six weeks to complete its task. The committee studied 2,000 submitted designs as well as 3,900 that had been gathered as a result of the 1946 committee's study. Those designs with a chance of being accepted were given to the full committee for further study. The suggestion of a red and white single maple leaf design for the Canadian flag came from George Stanley, a professor at the Royal Military College. After a heated discussion, _ finally decided on his suggestion. Question: How many colors are there in the National Flag of Canada? Yes or no, is the answer "Two."?
(Answer)
No

Ques: Article: The '80s' "important role" in the family has also meant a greater concentration and focus on the individual. And, it has made the word "me" one of the most frequently used words. Everything seems to be about "me". This generation has a greater awareness of itself. Some people do not seem to agree that all this is self-centred. When Cai Fuchao, prefix = st1 /Beijing's publicity head, was asked to comment on the lack of responsibility of university students during the SARS period, his reply was: "Modern university students are ambitious, knowledgeable and have a very strong sense of responsibility to the society." As news analyst from sina.com, Pan Fengliang, echoed that, saying that blindly blaming them(for running away during the SARS outbreak)was prejudiced and unfair and not backed with evidence. No doubt, the development of information technology has contributed its bit to broadening, or bending, the minds of the 80s generation. Some people even call Gen'80 "the E-generation". They get in touch with each other via email, QQ, ICQ and MSN. While the people of the '60s and '70s swarmed to Shanghai to catch Luo Dayou, Gen'80s were on the BBS saying that it was "really dumb". "The internet is so much more to those of the '80s than you can imagine," said Wu Junyong, an IT engineer who was born in 1978. In Wu's opinion, it's the Internet that separates the 70s from the 80s, "Many of the'70s don't see why those from the '80s can spend everyday in front of a computer." A new weekly Magazine/163.com survey last year found that 40 percent of the 7,000 people surveyed, born in the '80s, thought the computer was the most important article in life; more than 70 percent of their parents preferred the home. Question: The purpose of this passage is to tell us _ . Yes or no, is the answer "the'80s have their own characteristics and we shouldn't lose confidence in them"?
Ans: No

Article: Across countryside, non-food crops are growing alongside wheat.Some are used in new alternatives to plastics and other materials, but others will simply be burned. Burning crops is becoming more popular because it is good for the planet.Doing so is also cheaper than burning fossil fuels.As more land is devoted to non-food crop production, the economics of crops for fuel are likely to become even more favorable. Humans have been burning such biomass--organic materials from plants or animals-- since they discovered fire.But that burning fossil fuels could have catastrophic consequences has brought biomass back into fashion. Even allowing for emissions of carbon dioxide from fuel used in planting, harvesting, processing and transporting biomass fuel, replacing fossil fuel with biomass can typically reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 90 percent. Power stations around the world are experimenting with forms of biomass to add to their coal or oil, with encouraging results.Indeed, power companies could profit by turning to biomass, especially when the subsidies many governments offer for using renewable energy are taken into account. Farmers can benefit from growing biomass.In Europe, the reduction of subsidies for certain crops is exposing farmers to market forces.Instead of being paid for whatever they produce, farmers must seek a clear demand for their product.Many believe that the demand for alternatives to fossil fuels could be just such a driver. But while biomass offers a variety of potential alternatives, the world's infrastructure has developed around burning fossil fuels to such a stage that switching to biomass involves a change in conception that many companies have not accepted. Also, there are problems with using biomass.Although most coal-fired power stations could take a small amount of their fuel from biomass without significant adjustment, few are built to run on biomass alone.Burning some forms of biomass also causes environmental problems.Oils and waste can be smelly, while wood... Question: What is the author's attitude towards biomass fuels? Yes or no, is the answer "Objective"?
No