TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you're given an article, a question which often contains a blank and four options (associated with "A", "B", "C", "D"). Your task is to find the correct answer (from the given options) for the question from the given article and return one of the options from "A", "B", "C", and "D". Do not generate anything else apart from one of the following characters: "A", "B", "C", "D". There is only one correct answer for each question.
PROBLEM: Article: Who doesn't love sitting beside a cosy fire on a cold winter's night ? Who doesn't love to watch flames curling up a chimney? Fire is one of man's greatest friends, but also one of his greatest enemies. Many big fires are caused by carelessness. A lighted cigarette thrown out of a car or train window or a broken bottle lying on dry grass can start a fire. Sometimes, though, a fire can start on its own. Wet hay can begin burning by itself. This is how it happens: the hay starts to rot and begins to give off heat which is trapped inside it. Finally, it bursts into flames. That's why farmers cut and store their hay when it's dry. Fires have destroyed whole cities. In the 17th century, a small fire which began in a baker's shop burnt down nearly every building in London. Moscow was set on fire during the war against Napoleon. This fire continued burning for seven days. And, of course, in 64 A.D. a fire burnt Rome. Even today, in spite of modern fire-fighting methods, fire causes millions of pounds' worthy of damage each year both in our cities and in the countryside. It has been wisely said that fire is a good servant but a bad master .
Question: The writer considers it _ to sit beside a fire on a cold winter night .
Options: (A) nice (B) dangerous (C) unhappy (D) painful

SOLUTION: A

PROBLEM: Article: When policy experts debate climate change solutions, they often talk about "a price on carbon." They are arguing about whether companies should pay when they put carbon pollution in the air. Proponents say that it's simple economics -- if it's free to pollute, you'll get a lot of pollution. Opponents claim it will raise the cost of energy that's produced from high carbon sources, like coal. But here's the secret that most people seem to be missing: There already is a price on carbon, and it's paid by the taxpayers. Carbon pollution, like every other form of pollution, has an impact on the environment. Throwing waste into a river will cause the fish to die and the people who drink the water to get sick. And when you produce carbon pollution, you get climate change -- sea level rise, stronger storms, severe droughts, damage to agriculture, and more. All of those impacts cost money. Insurance rates go up when storms get more destructive. Taxes increase when cities have to rebuild bridges and roads. Military budgets go up when droughts and population changes cause conflicts. Not to mention impacts on agriculture and health care costs. In other words, the price on carbon is what we all pay when there is no market force to limit the pollution that causes climate change. So the debate is really about who will pay that price -- the companies who are making a profit from the fossil fuels, or the taxpayers who pick up the cost now? Right now, we have private profit and public cost. It's just like if we allowed every business to throw its garbage in the street because it's too expensive to have it moved away properly. Does it add a little bit to your dinner check to require that restaurants dispose of their trash properly? Sure. But it would be more expensive for you if the city had to clean the streets of their garbage every day. So just like we put a "price on garbage" we need a "price on carbon pollution." Now, a "price on carbon pollution" can mean a lot of things. You could tax companies based on the amount of carbon pollution they produce, and return the money to taxpayers. You could put a limit on how much they can produce, thereby requiring them to invest in ways to conduct business in a less polluting way.
Question: What do the policy experts argue about carbon pollution?
Options: (A) Whether the companies should pay for it. (B) Whether taxpayers could get profit from it. (C) Who have the ability to change it. (D) How much should be paid for it.

SOLUTION: A

PROBLEM: Article: You may think, salt is just a simple cooking element we shake on our food for a little extra taste. But salt is much more than that. Without salt our muscles would not move. Our nervous systems would not operate. Our hearts would not beat. But do not think rubbing salt in a wound will help. Doing that would be painful and not heal the wound. To rub salt in a wound is an idiom that means to purposefully make a bad situation worse. Early humans got the salt they needed to stay alive from the animals they killed. But advances in agriculture led to a diet low in salt. So, humans needed to find other sources. Those who lived near the ocean or other natural sources for salt were lucky. Those who did not had to trade for salt. In fact, people used salt as a method of payment in many parts of the ancient world. The word "salary" comes from the word "salt". Salt also played an important part in population movement and world exploration. Explorers understood that if they could keep food fresh,they could travel longer distances. So they used salt to preserve food and explored the world. Salt was so important that, according to food historians. it was traded pound-for-pound for gold. Today, people still use the expressions "to be worth one's salt" or "worth one's weight in salt". The expressions describe a person of value. A person might also be called salt of the earth. That description means he or she is dependable and trustworthy. However, when you say "I think we should take what he said with a grain of salt" you mean you accept it but maintain a degree of doubt about its truth.
Question: A beggar's bread was stolen last night.,which means _ .
Options: (A) salt of the earth (B) rubbing salt in a wound (C) a diet low in salt (D) worth his salt

SOLUTION:
B