Article: An unemployed man is desperate to support his family. His wife watches TV all day and his three teenage kids have dropped out of high school to hang around with the local toughs. He applies for a cleaner's job at a large firm and easily passes an aptitude test. The human resources manager tells him, "You will be hired at minimum wage, $5.15 an hour. Let me have your e-mail address so that we can contact you easily. Our system will automatically e-mail you all the forms and advise you when to start and where to report on your first day." Greatly surprised, the man protests that he has neither a computer nor an e-mail address. To this, the manager replies, "You must understand that to a company like ours that means you virtually do not exist. Without an e-mail address you can hardly expect to be employed by a high tech firm. Good day." Unable to believe what he heard, the man leaves. Not knowing where to turn and having $10 in his wallet, he walks past a farmers' market and sees a stand selling beautiful tomatoes. He buys a crate , carries it to a busy corner and displays the tomatoes. In less than two hours he sells all the tomatoes and makes 100% profit. From that day on, he repeats the tomato business and becomes increasingly successful as time goes on. By the end of the fifth year he owns a fleet of nice trucks and a warehouse. The tomato company has put hundreds of homeless and jobless people to work and the business grossed a million dollars. Planning for the future, he decides to buy some life insurance. The insurance adviser asks him for his e-mail address in order to send the final documents electronically. When the man replies that he doesn't have time to mess with a computer and has no e-mail address, the insurance salesman is surprised, " No computer? No Internet? Just think where you would be if you'd had all of that five years ago!" "Ha! If I'd had all of that five years ago, I would be sweeping floors at Microsoft and making $5.15 an hour!" the man replies. Question: The man's kids drop out of school because _ . Yes or no, is the answer "their family is very poor"?
Yes

Article: A hobby can be almost anything a person likes to do in his spare time. Hobbyists raise pets, build model ships, weave baskets, watch birds, hunt animals, climb mountains, raise flowers, fish, ski, skate, and swim. Hobbyists also paint pictures, attend concerts and plays, and perform on musical instruments. They collect everything from books to butterflies, and from shells to stamps. People take up hobbies because these activities offer enjoyment, friendship, knowledge, and relaxation. Sometimes they even produce financial profit . Hobbies help people balance between work and play. Hobbies also offer interesting activities for persons who have retired. Anyone, rich or poor, old or young, sick or well, can follow a satisfying hobby, regardless of his age, position, or income. Hobbies can help a person's mental and physical health. Doctors have found that hobbies are valuable in helping patients _ physical or mental illness. Hobbies give bedridden or wheel-chair patients something to do, and provide interests that keep them from thinking about themselves. Many hospitals treat patients by having them take up interesting hobbies or pastimes. In early times, most people were too engaged in making a living to have many hobbies. But some persons who had leisure did enjoy hobbies. The ancient Egyptians played games with balls made of wood or pottery. People today have more time than ever before for hobbies. Machines have reduced the amount of time they must spent on their jobs. Hobbies provide variety for workers who do the same monotonous tasks all day long. More people are retiring than ever before, and at an earlier age. Those who have developed hobbies never need to worry about what to do with their newly found leisure hours. Sir William Osier, a famous Canadian doctor, expressed the value of hobbies by saying, "No man is really happy or safe without a hobby." Question: In early times, most people spent less time on their hobbies, because _ . Yes or no, is the answer "they were busy in making a living"?
No

Article: Is it time to kick Russia out of the BRICs ?If so, it may end up sounding like a famous ball-point pen maker--BIC. An argument is being made that Goldman Sach's famous marketing device , the BRICs, should really be the BICs. "Is Russia really worth the name BRICs?" asks Anders Aslund, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, in an article for Foreign Policy. Aslund, who is also co-author with Andrew Kuchins of "The Russian Balance Sheet", thinks the Russia of Putin and Medvedev is just not worthy of inclusion alongside Brazil, India and China in the list of future economic powerhouses. He writes: "The country's economic performance has fallen to such a weak level that one must ask whether it has any say at all on the global economy, compared with the other members of its group. I have just returned from Moscow, which is always dull around this season. For the last seven years, Russia has taken very few measures to improve its economy. Instead, the state has been living on oil and gas." Economically, Aslund has the numbers on his side. The International Monetary Fund figures that the Russian economy will fall by 6.7 percent in 2009, while China will grow 8.5 percent and India 5.4 percent. There is less of a case for Brazil, with a fall of 0.7 percent, but it is still doing far better than Russia. But the BRICs are not just about economy. As is mentioned above, it is a marketing device to encourage investors to focus on the big promising players. From an investment standpoint, it could be argued that Russia is leading the BRICs. Its stock market is up 128 percent this year while around 80 percent is for the other three. At very least, despite Russia's economic underperformance, its stock market outperformance does suggest it is indeed one of the group. Question: According to Aslund, Russia shouldn't be a BRIC partly because _ . Yes or no, is the answer "its economic performance is worse than that of the others"?
No

Article: "Avoid the rush hour" must be the slogan of large cities all over the world. Wherever you look it's people, people, people. The trains which leave or arrive every few minutes are packed. The streets are so crowded; there is hardly room to move on the pavements. It takes ages for a bus to get to you because the traffic on the roads has almost come to a standstill. Even when a bus does at last arrive, it's so full, it can't take any more passengers. The smallest unexpected event can bring about conditions of complete chaos. The strange thing is not that people stand these conditions, but that they actually choose them in preference to anything else. Large modern cites are too big to control. People living there are forced by their environment to take a wholly unnatural way of life. They lost touch with the land and rhythm of nature. It is possible to live in such an air-conditioned existence in a large city that you can hardly tell the season. A few flowers in a public park may remind you that it is spring or summer. All the simple, good things of life like sunshine and fresh air are hard to find. Even the distinction between days and nights is lost. The funny thing about it all is that you pay dearly to live in a city. The demand for accommodation is so great that it is often impossible for ordinary people to buy a house of their own. The cost of living is also very high. Just about everything you buy is likely to be more expensive than it would be in the country. Besides, the crime rate in most cities is very high. If you think about it, they're not really fit to live in at all. Can anyone really doubt that the country is what man was born for and where he truly belongs? Question: What is the passage mainly about? Yes or no, is the answer "It's crazy to choose to live in a large city"?
No