(Question)
I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: In the eighteenth century one of the first modern economists, Adam Smith, thought that " the whole annual produce of the land and labour of every country" provided revenue to "three different orders of people: those who live by rent, those who live by wages, and those who live by profit". Each successive stage of the industrial revolution, however, made the social structure more complicated. Many intermediate groups grew up during the nineteenth century between the upper middle class and the working class. There were small-scale industrialists as well as large ones, small shopkeepers and tradesmen, officials and salaried employees, skilled and unskilled workers, and professional men such as doctors and teachers. Farmers and peasants continued in all countries as independent groups. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the possession of wealth inevitably affected a person's social position. Intelligent industrialists with initiative made fortunes by their wits which lifted them into an economic group far higher than that of their working-class parents. But they lacked social training of the upper class, who despised them as the "new rich." They often sent their sons and daughters to special schools to acquire social training. Here their children, mixed with the children of the upper classes, were accepted by them, and very often found marriage partners from among them. In the same way, a thrifty, hardworking labourer, though not clever himself, might save for his son enough to pay for an extended secondary school education in the hope that he would move in a "white-collar" occupation, carrying with it a higher salary and a move up in the social scale. In the twentieth century the increased taxation of higher incomes, the growth of the social services, and the wider development of educational opportunity have considerably altered the social outlook. The upper classes no longer are the sole, or even the main possessors of wealth, power and education, though inherited social position still carries... Question: Who were the 'new rich' during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? Options: A: They were still the upper class people. B: They were owners of large factories. C: They were intelligent industrialists. D: They were skilled workers who made their fortune.
(Answer)
C

(Question)
I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: In the suburban district of a city lived an old woman quite alone. Her husband died thirty years ago and two years later, her only son went away with lung cancer. So she had no family still living and her only friend was a little white dog who went everywhere with her - with one exception. The dog loved the fireplace in winter, and after the old woman went to bed he would sometimes go and lie in front of the warm coals. Usually though, the dog lay on a rug right next to the bed. Deeply as the old woman loved her dog, she wouldn't allow the dog on the bed with her. However, if she became frightened or had a nightmare, she would put her hand down to her little white dog and he would lick it to calm her down. One night she was reading the newspaper just before going to sleep. She trembled and pulled the duvet up around her as she read that a mental patient had wandered out from a nearby hospital. No one knew if the patient was dangerous or not, but he was a suspect in the murders of several women who lived alone. The woman turned off the lights and tried to sleep, but she was frightened, and turned over continually. Finally, she reached down to where her little white dog slept. Sure enough, a warm, wet tongue began to lick her hand. The woman felt reassured and safe, and left her hand hanging off the side of the bed. As she turned to settle in comfortably she opened her eyes for a moment and looked through the open door into the living room. There in front of the fireplace, sat her little white dog, gazing at the coals and wagging his tail. And down beside her bed, something was still licking her hand. Question: Why didn't she allow the dog on the bed with her? Options: A: Because the dog was too dirty. B: Because she was fearful of dogs. C: Because the author dislikes keeping dogs. D: The author didn't mention the reason for it.
(Answer)
D

(Question)
I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: There are now about 376 million people who speak English as their first language and about the same number who have learnt it in addition to their mother tongue. There are said to be one million people learning English now and about 80% of the information on the Internet is in English. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Should we celebrate the fact that more and more of us can communicate, using a common language, across countries and cultures? Or should we worry about dangers of "non-culturalism", a world in which we all speak the same language, eat the same food and listen to the same music? Does it matter if an increasing number of people speak the same language? Not necessarily, I have never agreed that if only we all understood each other better, there would be fewer wars. Ask the people ofprefix = st1 /India, where many of them speak at least some English, andPakistan, the same situation withIndia... If we all speak English, will we then all start eating McDonald's burgers? Surely not. If English becomes more dominant , will it kill other languages? I doubt it. When I travel in Africa or Asia, I am always surprised by how many people can speak not only their own language but often one or more other related languages, as well as English and perhaps more French or German as well. When we discussed this on Talking Point a couple of years ago, we received a wonderfully poetic e-mail from a listener inIreland. "The English language is a beautiful language. Maybe it's like a rose," he said. "But who would ever want their garden just full of roses?" Well, I love _ and I think they make a beautiful addition to any garden. But the way I see it, just by planting a few roses, you don't necessarily need to pull out everything else. If more and more people want to plant English roses, that'll be fine by me. Question: This passage is mainly about _ . Options: A: why English has become a global language B: how many people in the world speak English C: how people in the world learn English as a foreign language D: whether we need to worry about English being a world language
(Answer)
D