*Question*
Article: In most situations, light helps us see. But when it comes to looking at the night sky, light is actually a kind of pollution. It prevents our view of some of life's most striking sights: stars, planets, and even galaxies . "When I was a little boy, I loved the night sky. I remember looking up and the sky was filled with stars. I became an astronomer because I was amazed by their beauty," says Robert Gent, "Now in most big cities kids can't see the stars like I did." Normally, about 2,500 individual stars are visible to the human eyes without using any special equipment. But because of light pollution, you actually see just 200 to 300 and fewer than a dozen from some cities. Only one in three Americans can see our own galaxy with the naked eyes. Those people live far away from the lights of big cities, office buildings, and shopping malls. Fortunately, there's an inexpensive and useful way. If we shine lights down at the ground instead of up into the sky, and use lower brightness levels, we can save big amounts of energy and keep the beauty of the night sky. Many cities and towns have passed laws limiting lights at night, making sure enough shine for safety without creating much light pollution. Light pollution affects more than our view of the heavens and can harm wildlife. Migrating birds sometimes fly over cities and become confused by the brightness, flying in circles until they drop from _ Sea turtles need dark beaches for nesting and won't approach bright lights. Too much light at night may even affect human health. For all these reasons, researchers are working on ways to use lights only when and where they are truly needed. Everyone deserves to look up at the sky. Question: Which would be the best title for the text? Yes or no, is the answer "Light Pollution"?
**Answer**
No

*Question*
Article: Was the London Olympics a success? Many people hold different opinions. However one thing is certain, London could win a gold medal for hosting the "greenest" Games ever, BBC News reported. Previous Olympic hosts have been criticized for the environmental damage they have caused through construction, waste. and transport. But things had to be different in London because seven years ago it bid for the Olympics through the concept of "a One Planet Olympics". What is most impressive is that London used the construction of the Olympic Park as an opportunity to clean up polluted areas -- 2 million tons of contaminated soil were removed and 200 old factory buildings, were torn down, according to sustainablebusiness.com. But that's not all --. 99 percent of the debris were reused to build the Olympic Park. For example, part of the Olympic Stadium's roof is made from 2,500 tons of steel tubes recycled from old gas pipelines. As well as using recycled materials, all venues were built with green building techniques. The Olympic Stadium is the lightest one ever built, which _ the amount of steel and concrete needed. Also, the handball field has lighting pipes on the roof that reduce electricity use by 40 percent, according to sustainablebusiness.com. The effort that London made to deal with waste also deserves praise. Water used for drinking and watering plants was from collected rainwater or recycled wastewater. In this way. about 30-40 percent less water was used in total. Waste food packages were either recycled or processed and turned into renewable energy. As one of the best connected places in Europe, London tried to solve traffic jams by encouraging the use of public transport. For example, it had trains deliver half of the building materials, instead of cars, which greatly reduced carbon emissions. The clean anti-doping result also added to the greenness of the Games. The International Olympics Committee (IOC) said that the devices used this time were the most accurate and advanced. Only one athlete tested... Question: What is the best title of the passage? Yes or no, is the answer "London's green games"?
**Answer**
Yes

*Question*
Article: _ Countries would probably pass 'no reproduction' laws to keep population balanced, but obviously not everyone would observe. The world's population would grow very quickly at that. Animals and plants would die out, because humans needed the food. There would be no room for more people in the world. Scientists would most likely try to create living 'communities' underwater, on the moon, and in space stations. The state of starvation and lack of space would be difficult to deal with. Natural selection would happen with humans, which is when certain types of animals or plants are selected for, or selected against. For instance, rich humans and strong, tough humans would be more likely to live, because the rich could afford to buy the limited food, and the tough humans could kill people for their food, and steal the food. This possibility relates directly to the assumption that humans would not die of diseases and such, but must be killed or run out of the necessities for living. If you mean that no one could ever die, even if they were shot, burned, starved and eaten, then that would never ever happen; _ . However, if that were the case, then at some point, if there were not more areas to live than the land that humans live on now, then we would end up so packed that it would be virtually impossible to move, and humans would be forced to be on top of other people. It would be ridiculously crowded. Although, if humans lived forever, then I assume that we would all be extremely smart, and would have figured out solutions to the living situations, like on another planet, on the moon, under water, etc. Question: What is the author's main purpose of writing the passage? Yes or no, is the answer "To argue that no human being is likely to live forever."?
**Answer**
Yes

*Question*
Article: We all know the saying, "One's enemy is one's own anger and one's calmness is the friend of oneself." Anger is the root cause of many bad outcomes. We all know of damage that anger has caused us. There are many old stories that tell us the bad effects of anger. But the question is whether we should never experience anger and lead lives like sages ?I do not think the answer is a firm yes. Everyone should have this emotion and be able to use it in a wise way. In other words, it is also known as controlled aggression. We see a lot of this kind of controlled emotion when we watch athletes in action. If an athlete has the right amount of aggression, the game or the battle is half won. The other half can be won by his skills. Controlled aggression or anger also plays an important role in a person's career and life. During the courses of a person's career, people who hold high positions need to exercise this emotion called anger in a professional and right manner. For getting the work done well, it is important for you to make use of positive aggression or controlled anger. We can extend this to our daily lives as well. If the parent is not strict at times, children will behave in a wrong way and do not develop as they are expected. Teachers have to exercise this emotion in a wise way to make the students gain knowledge in an effective manner. All in all, if one is able to use the emotion called anger in a controlled manner, it will lead to the smooth development in his life and career. Question: Which of the following is a kind of controlled aggression according to the passage? Yes or no, is the answer "Trying to be better than others"?
**Answer**
No