Article: Most people think zoos are safe for animals, where struggles such as difficulty in finding food and avoiding natural enemies don't exist. Without such problems, animals in zoos should live to an old age. But that may not be true for the largest land animals on earth. Scientists have known that elephants in zoos often suffer from poor health. They develop diseases and behaviour changes. Sometimes, they even become infertile, or unable to have babies. To learn more about how elephants are affected, a team of international scientists compared the life spans of elephants born in zoos with those living outdoors in their native lands. Zoos keep detailed records of all the animals, such as birth dates, illnesses, weight and death. These records made it possible for the researchers to analyse 40 years of data on 800 African and Asian elephants in zoos across Europe. The team found that female African elephants born in zoos lived an average of 16.9 years while those in the wild lived an average of 56 years. Scientists don't yet know why wild elephants seem to be so much better than their zooraised elephants. Georgia Mason, a biologist who led the study, thinks stress and obesity may be to blame. Zoo elephants don't get the same kind of exercise they would in the wild, and most are fat. Another finding from the study showed that Asian elephants born in zoos were more likely to die early than Asian elephants caught in the wild and brought to zoos. Mason suggests stress in the mothers in zoos might cause them to have babies that are less likely to survive. Question: The scientists carried out a research so that they could know _ . Yes or no, is the answer "how the elephants are affected"?
No

(Question)
Article: Last month we reported about a study that showed eating even a little less salt could greatly help the heart. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The scientists used a computer model to predict how just three grams less salt a day would affect heart disease in the United States. The scientists said the results would be thirteen percent fewer heart attacks, eight percent fewer strokes , four percent fewer deaths and eleven percent fewer new cases of heart disease And two hundred forty billion dollars in health care savings. Researchers said it could prevent one hundred thousand heart attacks and ninety-two thousand deaths every year. They and public health professionals in the United States are interested in a national campaign to persuade people to eat less salt. Such campaigns are already in place in Britain, Japan and Finland. Michael Alderman is among the critics. He is a high blood pressure expert and professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. Doctor Alderman says that eating less salt results in lower blood pressure. But he says studies have not clearly shown that lowering salt means fewer heart attacks or strokes. And he says salt has other biological effects. He says calling for reduction in the national diet could have good effects, but it could also have harmful results. He says there is not enough evidence _ . Another critic is David McCarron, a nutrition and kidney disease expert at the University of California, Davis. He and his team looked at large studies of diets in thirty-three countries. They found that most people around the world eat about the same amount of salt. Most of them eat more salt than American health officials advise. Doctor McCarron says the worldwide similarity suggests that a person's brain might decide how much salt to eat. Both Doctor McCarron and Doctor Alderman have connections to the Salt Institute, a trade group for the salt industry. Doctor Alderman is a member of an advisory committee. But he says he receives no money from... Question: Which of the following about David McCarron is NOT TRUE? Yes or no, is the answer "He says he receives no money from the Salt Institute."?
(Answer)
Yes

Ques: Article: The Lionfish Invasion! Lionfish are popular saltwater aquarium fish all over the world, especially in the United States. Nowadays, they also live in Atlantic waters off the East Coast of the United States. These lionfish are what scientists call an invasive species or an "alien invader." Local divers off the coast of North Carolina were not expecting to see what they found one day in August 2002--the beautiful lionfish, common to the warm waters of the western Pacific, but unknown of the Carolina coast. They provided the first solid evidence that lionfish were in the Atlantic. A year later, scientists documented 19 lionfish sightings at eight locations along the North Carolina continental shelf. Then, lionfish were observed off the coasts of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, and even as far north as Long Island, New York! Between 2000 and 2003, lionfish sightings were reported at 16 different shipwrecks and natural hard bottom locations. During a summer 2004 research expedition, NOAA(The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) scientists collected 155 lionfish at 19 different locations off the North Carolina coast alone. The jump in numbers and distributions over such a short time strongly indicates that the lionfish is reproducing in the Atlantic Ocean. If this is true, it's the first time that a western Pacific fish has populated the U.S. Atlantic coast. These lionfish were likely released on purpose when people no longer wanted them! The swift and warm Gulf Stream, which transported the floating lionfish eggs from Florida northward, helped the lionfish's Atlantic journey. In Florida waters and along the continental shelf near the Gulf Stream the temperatures are very similar to the lionfish's native waters. However, from north Florida upward, the waters along the coastline are too cold in the winter for lionfish to survive. Scientists expect them to survive the winter only at water depths greater than 120ft because this is where the Gulf Stream has influence all year long. Very... Question: How does the author support the reproducing of lionfish in the Atlantic in Para.3? Yes or no, is the answer "By providing figures."?
Ans: Yes

Question: Article: The American newspaper has been around for about three hundred years. In 1721, the printer James Franklin, Benjamin's older brother, started the New England Courant,and that was what we might recognize today as a real newspaper. He filled his paper with stories of adventure, articles on art, on famous people, and on all sorts of political subjects. Three centuries after the appearance of Franklin'sCourant,few believe that newspapers in their present printed from will remain alive for long. Newspaper companies are losing advertisers ,readers, market value, and in some cases, their sense of purpose at a speed that would not have been imaginable just several years ago. The chief editor of theTimessaid recently, "At places where they gather, editors ask one another, 'How are you?', as if they have just come out of the hospital or a lost law case." An article about the newspaper appeared on the website of theGuandian, under the headline "NOT DEAD YET." Perhaps not, but the rise of the Internet, which has made the daily newspaper look slow and out of step with the world, has brought about a real sense of death. Some American newspapers have lost 42% of their market value in the past three years. The New York Times Company has seen its stock drop by 54% since the end of 2004, with much of the loss coming in the past year. A manager at Deutsche Bank suggested that stock-holders sell off their Times stock. The Washington Post Company has prevented the trouble only by changing part of its business to education; its testing and test-preparation service now brings in at least half the company's income. Question: Which of the following found a new way for its development? Yes or no, is the answer "The Washington Post."?
Answer:
No