Article: Few laws are so effective that you can see results just days after they take effect. But in the nine days since the federal cigarette tax more than doubled----to $1.01 per pack---smokers have jammed telephone 'quit lines' across the country seeking to kick the habit. This is not a surprise to public health advocates. They've studied the effect of state tax increases for years, finding that smokers, especially teens, are price sensitive. Nor is it a shock to the industry, which fiercely fights every tax increase. The only wonder is that so many states insist on closing their ears to the message. Tobacco taxes improve public health, they raise money and most particularly, they _ people from taking up the habit as teens, which is when nearly all smokers are addicted. Yet the rate of taxation varies widely. In Manhattan, for instance, which has the highest tax in the nation, a pack of Marlboro Light Kings cost $10.06 at one drugstore Wednesday. In Charleston, S.C., where the 7-cent-a-pack tax is the lowest in the nation, the price was $4.78. The influence is obvious. In New York, high school smoking hit a new low in the latest surveys----13.8%, far below the national average. By comparison, 26 % of high school students smoke in Kentucky, Other low-tax states have similarly depressing teen-smoking records. Hal Rogers, Representative from Kentucky, like those who are against high tobacco taxes, argues that the burden of the tax falls on low-income Americans "who choose to smoke." That's true. But there is more reason in keeping future generations of low-income workers from getting hooked in the first place. As for today's adults, if the new tax drives them to quit, they will have more to spend on their families, cut their risk of cancer and heart disease and feel better. Question: Rogers' attitude towards the low-income smokers might be _ . Yes or no, is the answer "sorry"?
No

Article: New York's streets were covered by people dressed in elephant costumes and others waving antiwar posters with pictures of US President George W. Bush on them last week. But this was no carnival - it was the Republican Party's National Convention , which attracted thousands of protestors . It was the largest protest ever at a US political convention, with at least 120,000 people marching through Manhattan on August 29. They demanded that the US leave Iraq and a new president be chosen. The Republicans say the opposition - Democrat Party encouraged the people on to the streets. They believe it is a democratic move to help win presidential election, to be held on November 2. The election is described as "the decisive battle between donkey and elephant". The two animals are the symbols of the two major political parties in the US. The elephant represents the Republicans, whose candidate , President George W. Bush, is trying to defeat the donkey to win his second them. The donkey represents the democrats, whose candidate, John Kerry, is trying to kick the elephant out of the White House. Republicans think the elephant is powerful and clever, but the Democrats argue it is stupid and conservative . In return, the Republicans regard the donkey as stubborn and silly but the Democrats say it is humble, plain, smart and courageous. The Republicans have been sending emails to Bush supporters and journalists with the heading, "An Elephant Never Forgets", said party spokeswoman Heather Layman. Elephants are known for their long memories. The emails suggest that Bush will keep his promises, while Kerry will not stick to his words. It is interesting that both symbols were created by a single person, Thomas Nast, a famous political cartoonist of the late 19th century. During the election in 1874, Nast drew a cartoon, in which a donkey in a lion's skin frightened an elephant marked "Republican". Question: What does "kick the elephant out of the White House" mean? Yes or no, is the answer "Drive President Bush out of power."?
Yes

Q: Article: Is It Worth Buying Organic Food? Organic food, grown without artificial chemicals, is increasingly popular nowadays. Consumers have been willing to pay up to twice as much for goods with organic labels . However, if you think paying a little more for organic food gets you a more nutritious and safer product, you might want to save your money. A study led by researchers at Stanford University says that organic products aren't necessarily more nutritious, and they're no less likely to suffer from disease-causing bacteria, either. The latest results, published in the Annuals of Internal Medicine, suggest that buyers may be wasting their money. "We did not find strong evidence that organic food is more nutritious or healthier," says Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler from Stanford. "So consumers shouldn't assume that one type of food has a lower risk or is safer." For their new study, Smith-Spangler and her colleagues conducted a review of two categories of research, including 17 studies that compared health outcomes between consumers of organic against traditional food products, and 223 studies that analyzed the nutritional content of the foods, including key vitamins, minerals and fats. While the researchers found little difference in nutritional content, they did find that organic fruit and vegetables were 20% less likely to have chemicals remaining on the surfaces. Neither organic nor traditional foods showed levels of chemicals high enough to go beyond food safety standards. And both organic and traditional meats, such as chicken and pork, were equally likely to be harmed by bacteria at very low rates. The researchers did find that organic milk and chicken contained higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, a healthy fat also found in fish that can reduce the risk of heart disease. However, these nutritional differences were too small, and the researchers were unwilling to make much of them until further studies confirm the trends. Organic food is produced with fewer chemicals and more natural-growing practices, but... Question: Which of the following is relatively healthier according to the passage? Yes or no, is the answer "Organic milk and chicken."?
A: Yes

*Question*
Article: On Thursday afternoon Mrs. Clarke, dressed for going out, took her handbag with her money and her key in it, pulled the door behind her to lock it and went to the over 60s Club. She always went there on Thursdays. It was a nice outing for an old woman who lived alone. At six o'clock she came home, let herself in and at once smelt cigarette smoke. Cigarette smoke in her house? How? How? Had someone got in? She checked the back door and the windows. All were locked or fastened, as usual. There was no sign of forced entry. Over a cup of tea she wondered whether someone might have a key that fitted her front door -- " _ " perhaps. So she stayed at home the following Thursday. Nothing happened. Was anyone watching her movements? On the Thursday after that she went out at her usual time, dressed as usual, but she didn't go to the club. Instead she took a short cut home again, letting herself in through her garden and the back door. She settled down to wait. It was just after four o'clock when the front door bell rang. Mrs. Clarke was making a cup of tea at the time. The bell rang again, and then she heard her letter-box being pushed open. With the kettle of boiling water in her hand, she moved quietly towards the front door. A long piece of wire appeared through the letter-box, and then a hand. The wire turned and caught around the handle on the door-lock. Mrs. Clarke raised the kettle and poured the water over the hand. There was a shout outside, and the skin seemed to drop off the fingers like a glove. The wire fell to the floor, the hand was pulled back, and Mrs. Clarke heard the sound of running feet. Question: The lock on the front door was one which _ . Yes or no, is the answer "could be opened from inside without a key"?
**Answer**
No