Article: Although new laws have been passed in some American states to cut down on distracted driving, many accidents and deaths were still related with it, especially using cell phones while driving. Recently the Obama administration is considering disabling cell phones in cars, aiming to out down cell-phone-related road deaths. Transportation Secretaryy Ray LaHood, the nation's anti-distracted-driving supporter, said in an interview on November 18 that federal officials are looking at technology to disable cell phones inside cars. "I think it will be done," LaHood said."I think the technology is there and 1 think you're going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones.We need to do a lot more if we were going to save lives." Also on Thursday, the transportation government started a new "Faces of Distracted Driving" video campaign that features people who have been killed or lost their loved ones because of inattentive drivers.The video features heartbreaking stories of children killed in crashes because of phoning or text messaging, and new videos are expected to be added every few weeks. A driver is four times more likely to crash while using a mobile phone.More than 5,500 people were killed last year by distracted drivers, and another 500,000 were injured.LaHood has said it is never safe to talk on a cell phone while driving, hands-free or not, because it can really cause distraction. Incidentally, a lot of people seem to agree with this viewpoint--a new research shows nearly two-thirds of Americans support a national ban on the use of cell phones while driving, even if the driver is using a hands-free device .But the research didn't ask how people feel about government-issued mobile phone scramblers or other disabling devices. Question: The Obama administration is considering disabling cell phones in cars because _ . Yes or no, is the answer "using phones while driving has caused many accidents"?
No

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. Question: What's the best title of this passage? Yes or no, is the answer "Publice Is Against Cloned Food"?
No

Q: Article: You are enrolled in a full - time school called "life". Each day in this school you will have the opportunity to learn lessons. You may like the lessons or hate them, but you have designed them as part of your curriculum. Why are you here? What is your purpose? Humans have sought to discover the meaning of life for a very long time. What we and our ancestors have overlooked, however, is that there is no one answer. The meaning of life is different for every individual. Each person has his or her own purpose and distinct path, unique and separate from anyone else's. As you travel your life path, you will be presented with numerous lessons that you will need to learn in order to fulfill that purpose. The lessons you are presented with are specific to you; learning these lessons is the key to discovering and fulfilling the meaning and connection of your own life. As you travel through your lifetime, you may encounter challenging lessons that others don't have to face, while others spend years struggling with challenges that you don't need to deal with. You may never know why you are blessed with a wonderful marriage, while your friends suffer through bitter arguments and painful divorces, just as you cannot be sure why you struggle financially while your peers enjoy abundance. The only thing you can count on for certain is that you will be presented with all the lessons that you specifically need to learn; whether you choose to learn them or not is entirely up to you. The challenge here, therefore, is to align (......) yourself with your own unique path by learning individual lessons. This is one of the most difficult challenges you will be face with in your lifetime, as sometimes your path will be completely different from others'. But, remember, don't compare your path to the people around you and focus on the difference between their lessons and yours. You need to remember that you will only be faced with lessons that you are capable of learning and are specific to your own growth. Our sense of... Question: According to the passage, how can the meaning of your life be realized? Yes or no, is the answer "Learning the lessons presented to you."?
A: No

(Q).
Article: Are you carrying too much on your back at school? You're not alone. Back experts in the USA were worried that young students are having back and neck problems because they are carrying too much in their backpacks (schoolbags). "It hurts my back when I run," said Eglin Reyes, a student in Virginia. "It's hard to get up the stairs with my backpack because it's too heavy." Students have to carry heavy backpacks on their backs for a whole week's study. Beeline is one of them. They have regular backpacks with two straps to carry them, but a number of students with heavy loads have switched to rolling backpacks. The backpacks have wheels and can roll on the ground. Shirley Park's backpack weighs 10 kilos, and she said, "I'll change to a rolling backpack because I am starting to have back pain." How much is too much? Experts say that students should carry no more than 10 to 15 percent of their own body weight. A few students have had a good idea to lighten the load: Less homework. Doctor's suggestions: *Lighten the load. Take home only the books the students need that night. *Wide straps are better. They can send out weight over your shoulders and be sure to wear backpacks with two straps. *The heaviest things should be packed closest to the back. *Bend both knees when you pick up the pack, don't just bend the waist . Question: By the words of the experts, it's better for a student of 40 kilos to carry a backpack of at most _ . Yes or no, is the answer "6 kilos"?
(A).
No