Article: While they were almost unknown twenty years ago, it seems that mobile phones these days are part of everyone's life. However, as with other inventions such as the television and the computer, they are a double-edged sword, inviting both supporters and opponents, especially in regard to their use in public places like restaurants and cinemas. One of the strongest arguments in favor of forbidding mobiles in public places is the trouble they cause to other people. For example, although we are often asked to turn off our phones when in a cinema, the film that we are watching is often interrupted by the sound of at least five rings. To make it even worse, some people insist on continuing their conversation, even though hundreds of people can hear what they say, which often drowns out the voice from the film. As a result, many people would welcome a ban on mobile phones in places where they might disturb other people. On the other hand, there are a number of arguments against such a ban. It is difficult to stop people bringing with them their mobile phones in public places, making it almost impossible to call for a ban. Some people would see this as an infringement of their rights, while other people would say they need them in case of an emergency. Despite being asked to silence their phones, some people insist on leaving them on. It seems to me that a ban on mobile phones would not have any result in the end. People will find a way to escape a ban. Nevertheless, people should be discouraged from using them in public places, unless it is highly necessary. They should be made to know that it is bad manners to use them in certain places or at certain times. Of course, there will always be someone who thinks their call is more important than others' peace and quiet! Question: The author of the text thinks that _ . Yes or no, is the answer "mobiles can be used in case of an emergency in public places"?
No

Article: Read a lot, I mean a lot! You have to increase your ability for reading. Many students are in the habit of reading only when their exams are approaching while some others read only what they are taught or things that must be read because it is in their curriculum. But listen to me now, I am telling you from my own experience that it is a very bad habit and it is not enough to improve your intelligence. You have to learn and get ready to become _ in your reading. The fact that you are studying medicine in school does not mean that you should not know one or two things on politics. Many people have complained to me that they find it hard to read stuffs like novels but I just shake my head in pity for them because it is obvious they have failed to realize the truth in that wise saying by Margaret Fuller that "today a READER, tomorrow a LEADER!" When you read, you get to "see" so many places and it will be as if you have visited those places in real life. This is because reading will improve your imagination and creativity and understanding. You also get experience from learning about how people dealt with their various problems thereby saving you from going through the pains and difficulties they must have gone through! Reading will also help you in improving your vocabulary because you will certainly start coming across so many new words which you will try as much as possible to get accustomed to with the help of the dictionary! The good thing about increasing your vocabulary is that it will also improve your thinking ability. After all, we think in words and the more words you know, the easier it will become for you to express yourself or your thoughts. And when you read, make sure you read so wide because the more you read, the more you know and the more you know the more intelligent you can become. Question: What is the benefit of knowing more words? Yes or no, is the answer "You will have less difficulty expressing your opinions."?
No

Q: Article: Here is an astonishing and signficant fact:Mental work alone can't make us tired. It sounds absurd. But a few years ago, scientists tried to find out how long the human could labor without reaching a stage of fatigue . To the amazement of these scientists, they discovered thett blood passing through the brain, when it is active, shows no fatigue at all! If we took a drop of blood from a day labourer, we could find it full of fatigue toxins and fatigue products. But if we took blood from the brain of Albert Einstein, it would show no fatigue toxing at the end of the day. So far as the brain is concerned, it can work as well and swiftly at the end of eight or even twelve hours f efforts as at the beginning. The brain is totally tireless. So what makes us tired. Some scientists declare that most of our fatigue come from our mental and emotional attitudes. One of England's most outstanding scientists. J. A. Hadfield,says,"The greater part of the fatigue from which we suffer is of mental origin. In fact,fatigue of purely physical origin is rare." Dr. Brill, a famous American scientist, goes even further. He declares,"One hundred percent of the fatigue of a sitting worker in good health is due to emotional problems." What kinds of emotions make sitting workers tired?Joy?Satifaction?No!A feeling of being bored,anger,anxiety,tenseness,worry,a feeling of nt being appreciated---those are emotions that tire sitting workers.Hard work by itself seldom causes fatigue.We get tired because our emotions produce nervousness in the body. Question: We can infer from the passage that in order to stay energic, sitting workers need to _ . Yes or no, is the answer "enjoy their work"?
A: No

(Question)
Article: In 1977, Jack, an Italian-American who lived in San Francisco, flew from America to Italy to visit his s. On the way, the plane made a one-hour stop to refuel at the New York Airport. Thinking that he had arrived, Jack got out and spent three days in New York, believing he was in Rome. When his s were not there to meet him, Jack thought they had been caught in the heavy Roman traffic mentioned in their letters. While looking for their address, Jack could not help noticing that modernization had changed most, if not all, of the ancient city's landmarks. He also noticed that many people spoke English with strong American accent. However, he just thought that Americans got everywhere. He also believed that so many street signs were written in English especially for the Americans. Jack spoke very little English himself so he asked a policeman in Italian the way to the bus station. As chance would have it, the policeman came from Italy and replied in the same language. After twelve hours traveling round on a bus, the driver handed him over to a second policeman. After brief argument with the policeman, Jack was very surprised to find that the Rome police had employed someone who did not speak his mother tongue. Jack did not believe he was told that he was in New York. In order to get on a plane to San Francisco, the policeman raced him to the airport in a police car with sirens screaming. "See," he said to his interpreter. "I know I'm in Italy. That's how they drive." Question: Which of the following is Not true? Yes or no, is the answer "Jack could speak much English"?
(Answer)
No