Article: If your cellphone suddenly stops working, don't blame the service provider.The malfunction might well have been caused by something bigger -- a solar storm.Experts expect that Earth will see more solar activity in the near future.The malfunction of electronic devices will just one of the effects. Sunspots serve as an indicator of the sun's activity.For the past two years, sunspots have mostly been missing.Their absence, the most prolonged in nearly 100 years, has taken even seasoned sun watchers by surprise. When the number of sunspots drops at the end of each 11-year cycle, solar storms die down and all become much calmer. This "solar minimum" doesn't last long. Within a year, sunspots and solar storms begin to build toward a new crescendo, the next solar maximum. What's special about this latest cycle is that the sun is having trouble starting the next solar cycle. The sun began to calm down in late 2007, so no one expected many sunspots in 2008. They should return in 2010. Scientists have predicted that the next solar cycle could be the most active on record: more sunspots and more solar storms. However, sunspots are mostly missing now. Since the earth is in close contact with the sun, strong solar activities can bring trouble to our life. People of the 21st century rely on high-tech systems for the basics of daily life. Air travel and radio communications can be affected by strong solar activities. A big solar storm could cause 20 times more economic damage than Hurricane Katrina. What the sun will do next is beyond our ability to predict. Most astronomers think that the solar cycle will go on but at low level. However, there is also evidence that the sun is losing its ability to produce sunspots. By 2015, they could be gone altogether. Question: We can infer that in the past two years_. Yes or no, is the answer "our cellphones have seldom been interrupted by the solar storm"?
No

Article: Everyone may all have the experience of feeling anxious and stressed when having a rough day or having some troubles. Different people may choose different ways to deal with it, and for most people a break for a 10-minute walk may be quite useful.www.zxxk.com Anyway, here is another way around: to get a piece of chewing gum, and chew it. According to a Swinburne University of Technology study, gum-chewing has been found to "relieve anxiety, improve alertness and reduce stress among individuals in a laboratory setting." Some may argue that a laboratory is not the same as an office. But check out the conditions of the study: individuals were monitored while performing "a group of 'multi-tasking' activities." Doesn't it sound like the situation in the office?www.zxxk.com Here's a summary of some of the study's findings: Gum chewers showed a reduction in anxiety as compared to non-gum chewers by nearly 17 percent during mild stress and nearly 10 percent in appropriate stress. Gum chewers showed improvement in alertness over non-gum chewers by nearly 19 percent during mild stress and 8 percent in moderate stress. Improved Performance: Chewing gum resulted in a big improvement in overall performance on multi-tasking activities. Although these aren't major improvements, every little bit works and chewing a piece of gum is a lot quicker and easier than slipping outside for a 10-minute walk. So, how does gum work this magic? In part it does so by lowering the level of cortisol --a steroid hormone that is released in response to stress in your system. A few words of advice before you reach for the gum: don't crack your gum, and be sure to chew it with your mouth closed. In fact, I'd say keep the gum out of meetings, because it really looks impolite to others around you. Question: From the study in the text we know that _ . Yes or no, is the answer "gum chewers tend to be less stressed"?
No

Q: Article: Over the past century, all kinds of unfairness and discrimination have been made illegal. But one popular form continues to exist, that is alphabetism . This, for those as yet unaware of such a disadvantage, refers to discrimination against those whose surnames begin with a letter in the lower half of the alphabet. It has long been known that the cars of a taxi firm called AAAA have a big advantage over Zodiac cars when customers look through their phone directories. Less well known is the advantage that Adam Abbot has in life over Zoe Zysman. English names are fairly spread between the halves of the alphabet. Yet a quite large number of top people have surnames beginning with letters between A and K. Thus the American presidents and vice-presidents have surnames starting with B and C separately and 26 of those before George Bush took office (including his father ) had surnames in the first half of the alphabet against just 16 in the second half. Even more striking, six of the seven heads of government of the G7 rich countries are alphabetically advantaged (Berlusconi, Blair, Bush, Chirac, Chretien and Koizumi). The world's three top central bankers ( Greenspan, Duisenberg and Hayami)are all close to the top of the alphabet, even if one of them really uses Japanese characters. The same case are the world's five richest men ( Gates, Buffet and so on) . Can this merely happen by chance? At the start of the first year in primary school, teachers seat pupils, alphabetically from the front, to make it easier to remember their names. So shortsighted and small-sized Zysman junior gets stuck in the back row, and is seldom asked the improving questions by those teachers. At that time the alphabetically disadvantaged may think they have had a lucky escape. Yet the result may be worse qualifications, because they get less attention, as well as less confidence in speaking publicly. The unfairness continues. At university graduation parties, the ABCs proudly get their awards first. However, by the time they reach the... Question: Which of the following is TRUE according to the passage? Yes or no, is the answer "Putting things alphabetically may lead to unintentional unfairness."?
A: Yes

Article: Can we turn negative thoughts like "I never do anything right" into positive ones like "I can succeed"? Is there power in positive thinking? Researchers in Canada just published a study in the journal Psychological Science that says trying to get people to think more positively can actually have the opposite effect: it can simply emphasize how unhappy they are. The study's authors, Joanne Wood and John Lee of the University of Waterloo and Elaine Perunovic of the University of New Brunswick, begin by referring to older research showing that when people get feedback which they believe is overly positive, they actually feel worse, not better.If you tell your friend that he may be an Einstein, _ In one 1990s experiment, a team including psychologist Joel Cooper of Princeton asked participants to write passages opposing funding for the disabled.When they were later praised for their sympathy, they felt even worse about what they had written. In this experiment, Wood, Lee and Perunovic measured 68 students' self-esteem .The participants were then asked to write down their thoughts and feelings for four minutes.Every 15 seconds, one group of students heard a bell.When it rang, they were supposed to tell themselves, "I am lovable." Those with low self-esteem didn't feel better after the experiment.In fact, their moods turned significantly darker than those of members of the control group, who weren't urged to think positive thoughts. The paper provides support for newer forms of psychotherapy that urge people to accept their negative thoughts and feelings rather than fight them.In the fighting, we not only often fail but can make things worse.Meditation techniques, on the contrary, can teach people to put their shortcomings into a large, more realistic perspective .Call it the power of negative thinking. Question: What do we learn from the experiment of Wood, Lee and Perunovic? Yes or no, is the answer "Forcing a person to think positive thoughts may lower their self-esteem."?
No