TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you're given an article, a question which often contains a blank, four options (associated with "A", "B", "C", "D") and the answer to that question. Your task is to classify whether the given answer is correct or not by providing "Yes" or "No", based on the article.
PROBLEM: Article: "Colour" and "color1" , "favourite" and "favorite""- Have you ever wondered why Americans spell those words without a "u"? Is it because they are lazy? Of course not.In fact, the difference in spelling was created by Noah Webster(1758--1843) .He is a teacher who reformed English to make American identity stronger.Linguists celebrated his 250th birthday on October 16,2008.After the Revolutionary War(1775--1783) , Webster believed that Americans should have their own dictionary, rather than rely on British versions.He dropped the British "u" in some words.And he changed "centre" into "center" for children to learn English by spelling words more like they sounded. Webster wasn't shy about expressing his opinions.In defining preposterous (unreasonable) , he wrote: "A Republican government in the hands of females is preposterous." Webster spent 28 years on the project before completing the 70,000 -word dictionary in 1828 with his American - style spellings.He also added local words.His dictionary was widely used in schools.Linguists believed it helped a new nation achieve unity and cultural independence at a time when most were focused on political freedom. "He was the shaper of our language and the shaper of American identity," said Joshua Kendall, who is working on a biography about Webster."He at last got us united through our language.
Question: According to the passage, when he worked on his dictionary, Noah Webster did all of the following EXCEPT _ .
Options: (A) dropping "u" in all the British words (B) changing "centre" into "center" (C) adding local words (D) voicing his opinion
Asnwer: A

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: Article: "A very disruptive six-year-old child kicked my legs and clawed at my hand," said one teacher. " I broke up a fight and was kicked between my legs," said another. Many people have heard stories like this. But the situation is more worrying still and it involves parents. Every child, regardless of the circumstances into which they are born, has the right to achieve their potential, regardless of their parents' wealth and class. And we recognize that, as a nation, it is a long way to achieve this goal. But with rights come responsibilities and what worries people is that we are in danger of ignoring the latter. Far too many children are behaving badly at school, even to the point of being violent to staff. This is terrible enough, but it is hard to be surprised since many children are just mirroring the behaviour of their parents. My members tell me that parents also come into school often and threaten staff and some staff have been attacked by a pupil's parents. One father encouraged his child to start a fight on the playground before school started. A primary teacher reported that a parent shouted at him. We need to have a serious and sensible debate about the roles and responsibilities of parents and the support that they can reasonably expect of schools and teachers. Children will not learn how to behave as social beings if they are stuck in front of the TV for hours every day. They need their parents to show an interest in them and to spend time with them, helping them to play with their peers and to learn the rules of social behavior. Children are now arriving at school socially undeveloped, increasingly unable to dress themselves, unable to use the toilet properly, unable to hold a knife and fork and unused to eating at a table, Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, writes in today's Observer. Instead of taking responsibility themselves, too many parents expect teachers to control their children's behaviour and wellbeing, she adds. Bousted says one mother blamed staff when she discovered that her 16-year-old son was smoking. We are in danger of becoming a nation of _ . The bedroom, once a place to sleep, has become the living space for the young. Spending hours in front of computer screens, on social networking sites or being immersed in computer games, children and young people spend little time with their parents. Parents are unable to monitor just what their children are watching. Schools cannot right the wrongs of society and teachers cannot become substitute parents. Both parties need to work together. Parents must be helped and given confidence to take back control. They are responsible for setting boundaries for their children's behaviour and sticking to those boundaries. They are responsible for setting a good example to their children and for devoting that most precious of resources -- time -- so that children come to school ready and willing to learn.
Question: In the opinion of the writer, what problem do people ignore?
Options: (A) The violence in the school (B) The study pressure of students. (C) The responsibilities of the students (D) The right to achieve students' potential.
Asnwer: C

SOLUTION: Yes

PROBLEM: Article: Unlike chemists and physicists, who usually do their experiments using machines, biologists and medical researchers have to use living things like rats. But there are three Nobel prize-winning scientists who actually chose to experiment on themselves - all in the name of science, reported The Telegraph. 1. Werner Forssmann (Nobel prize winner in 1956) Forssmann was a German scientist. He studied how to put a pipe inside the heart to measure the pressure inside and decide whether a patient needs surgery. Experiments had been done on horses before, so he wanted to try with human patients. But it was not permitted because the experiment was considered too dangerous. Not giving up, Forssmann decided to experiment on himself. He anaesthetized his own arm and made a cut, putting the pipe 30 centimeters into his vein. He then climbed two floors to the X-ray room before pushing the pipe all the way into his heart. 2. Barry Marshall (Nobel prize winner in 2005) Most doctors in the mid-20th century believed that _ was down to stress, spicy food or an unusually large amount of stomach acid. But in 1979 an Australian scientist named Robin Warren found that the disease might be related to a bacteria called Helicobacter pylori. So he teamed up with his colleague, Barry Marshall, to continue the study. When their request to experiment on patients was denied, Marshall bravely drank some of the bacteria. Five days later, he lost his appetite and soon was vomiting each morning - he indeed had gastritis. 3. Ralph Steinman (Nobel prize winner in 2011) This Canadian scientist discovered a new type of immune system cell called the dendritic cell. He believed that it had the ability to fight against cancer. Steinman knew he couldn't yet use his method to treat patients. So in 2007, when doctors told him that he had cancer and that it was unlikely for him to live longer than a year, he saw an opportunity. With the help of his colleagues, he gave himself three different vaccines based on his research and a total of eight experimental therapies. Even though Steinman eventually died from his cancer, he lived four and a half years, much longer than doctors had said he would.
Question: What's the main purpose of the article?
Options: (A) To introduce a few Nobel prize winners who did experiments on themselves. (B) To list difficulties that scientists went through in order to make important discoveries. (C) To explain why some scientists chose to experiment on themselves. (D) To introduce some dangerous experiments that Nobel prize winners did on themselves.
Asnwer: C

SOLUTION:
No