Write a multi-choice question for the following article, with the given choices and answer: Article: Which is safer --- staying at home, traveling to work on public transport, or working at the office? Surprisingly, each of these carries the same risk, which is very low.However, what about flying compared to working in the chemical industry? Unfortunately, the former is 65 times riskier than the latter! In fact the accident rate of workers in the chemical industry is less than that of almost any of human activity, and almost as safe as staying at home. The trouble with the chemical industry is that when things go wrong they often cause death to those living nearby.It is this that makes chemical accidents so newsworthy.Fortunately, they are extremely rare.The most famous ones happened at Texas City (1947), Flixborough (1974), Seveso (1976), Pemex (1984) and Bhopal (1984). Some of these are always in the minds of the people even though the loss of life was small.No one died at Seveso, and only 28 workers at Flixborough.The worst accident of all was Bhopal, where up to 3,000 were killed.The Texas City explosion of fertilizer killed 552.The Pemex fire at a storage plant for natural gas in the suburbs of Mexico City took 542 lives, just a month before the unfortunate event at Bhopal. Some experts have discussed these accidents and used each accident to illustrate a particular danger.Thus the Texas City was caused by tons of ammonium nitrate, which is safe unless stored in a great quantity.The Flixborough fireball was the fault of management, which took risks to keep production going during essential repairs.The Seveso accident shows what happens if the local authorities lack knowledge of the danger on their doorstep.When the poisonous gas drifted over the town , local leaders were incapable of taking effective action.The Pemex fire was made worse by an overloaded site in an overcrowded suburb.The fire set off a chain reaction of exploding storage tanks.Yet, by a miracle, the two largest tanks did not explode.Had these caught fire, then 3,000 strong rescue team and fire fighters would all have died. Options: A Working at the office is safer than staying at home. B Travelling to work on public transport is safer than working at the office. C Staying at home is safer than working in the chemical industry. D Working in the chemical industry is safer than traveling by air. Answer: D Working in the chemical industry is safer than traveling by air. Question:
----
Answer: Which of the following statements is TRUE?

Q: Write a multi-choice question for the following article, with the given choices and answer: Article: The Food and Drug Administration is, again, threatening to impose milk and meat from cloned animals on a public that opposes the technology and its products. Respected polls report that more than 60% of Americans think animal cloning is immoral, and that most people said they wouldn't knowingly eat the products even if the FDA approved them. But because the FDA would allow cloned meat and milk to be sold without identifying labels, consumers wouldn't be able to avoid them. The FDA has consistently tilted toward those who want cloned milk and meat in our food. Agency officials have repeatedly asserted that science shows cloned milk and meat are safe for humans. But the FDA has never published the complete scientific studies it says support that claim. The argument that cloning is safe for animals is unconvincing. Cloned meat and milk offer no public economic benefits. Having cloned cows produce more milk wouldn't reduce milk prices. prefix = st1 /USfarmers produce more milk than we drink, and the government is required to buy the surplus. Since 2000, dairy support programs have cost taxpayers more than $ 5 billion. Most important, this first decision to advance animal biotechnology raises ethical issues beyond the FDA's expertise. Techniques used to clone animals will advance the ability to clone humans-and create animals with human genes. Neither the agency nor animal scientists are qualified to tell us whether and when it is ethically acceptable for humans to alter the essential nature of animals. We need a national discussion, including ethicists and religious leaders, to consider the wisdom of cloned and transgenic animals. Given the risk of unintended consequences, we should proceed cautiously. The president should halt further FDA action on cloning and set in motion a process for beginning this broader discussion. Options: A neutral B opposed C approving D supportive Answer: B opposed Question:
A: The author's attitude towards cloning is _ .

Question: Write a multi-choice question for the following article, with the given choices and answer: Article: We are already familiar with computers--computers work for us at home, in offices and in factories. But it is also true that many children today are using computers at schools before they can write. What does this mean for the future? Are these children lucky or not? Many people who do not know about computers think of them as machines that children play with. They worry that children do not learn from experience but just from pressing a button and that this is not good for them. They think that children are growing not knowing about the real world. But people who understand more about computers say that computers can be very good for children. A computer can help them to learn about the real world more quickly, to learn what they want to learn and think for themselves. And for the future, don't we need people who can think clearly, who know how to get information quickly and use it well? What do you think? Options: A Yes, they do. B No, not everyone thinks so. C They don't know. D They are not sure. Answer: B No, not everyone thinks so. Question:
Answer: Does everyone think computers are good for children?

Write a multi-choice question for the following article, with the given choices and answer: Article: It is said that a great many things about languages are mysterious, and many will always be so. But some things we do know. Firstly, we know that all human beings have a language of some kind. There is no race of men anywhere on earth so backward that it has no language, no set of speech sounds by which the people communicate with one another. In historical times, there has never been a race of men without a language. Secondly, there is no such thing as a primitive language. There are many people whose cultures are underdeveloped, who are, as we say, uncivilized, but the languages they speak are not primitive. In all known languages we can see complexities that must have been tens of thousands of years in developing. This has not always been well understood; indeed, the direct contrary has often been stated. Popular ideas of the language of the American Indians will illustrate. Many people have guessed that the Indians communicated in a very primitive system of noises. Study has proved this to be nonsense. There are, or were, hundreds of American Indian languages, and all of them turn out to be very complicated and very old. They are certainly different from the languages that most of us are familiar with, but they are no more primitive than English and Greek. A third thing we know about language is that all languages are perfectly adequate. This means each one is a perfect means of expressing the culture of the people who speak the language. Finally, we know that language changes. It's natural and normal for language to change; the only languages which do not change are the dead ones. This is easy to understand if we look backward in time. Change goes on in all aspects of language. Grammatical features change as do speech sounds and changes in vocabulary are sometimes very extensive and may occur very rapidly. Vocabulary is the least stable part of any language. Options: A complicated B uncivilized C primitive D wellknown Answer: A complicated Question:
----
Answer:
As the author says, people of underdeveloped cultures can have _ languages.