Article: The Venice Carnival is the largest and the most important Venetian festival. It is a festival that celebrates the passage from winter to spring, a time when seemingly anything is possible, including the illusion that the people at the bottom become the most powerful by wearing masks on their faces. The Venice Carnival could date back to 1296. It was confirmed on the day before Lent, a public holiday, but it had no direct religious connection at that time. However, the participants were not allowed to wear masks around the city at night; men could not enter convents if they pretended to be women, and celebrations within the convents were strictly forbidden. People who broke the rules could be put into prison. The laws were not relaxed until the late 17thcentury, when the carnival-goers were allowed to wear masks throughout the carnival. Participants would wear a white mask in old days, while costumes have become even wilder today. St. Mark's Square is the center for the carnival, while Campo San Polo and Sestiere are two other popular places where events take place. Most of the events are free, along with several unusual masked balls for which visitors will have to buy tickets in advance. The 2012 Venetian Carnival was celebrated from February 11 to 21. There were the liveliest celebrations of parties, performances, show, music, dances, dinner sets along streets, and hotels. It attracted a great number of visitors around the world. Many travelers booked Venice hotels and prepared costumes and masks well ahead of time so that they couldn't be made fun of by local people. Question: In Venice carnival celebrations can't be held in _ . Yes or no, is the answer "convents"?
Yes

Article: There are many famous writers in the English world, among whom Jane Austen (1775--1817) has been popular with all ages. But then Jane Austen wrote her novels in England, she was writing about a world that most of us would not recognize. But today Austen's books are in greater demand than ever. In the last ten years, five of the six novels have been made into Hollywood films, while her books continue to be bestsellers. So why is Austen still popular? Richard Jenkyns, a professor of English at Oxford University, argues that her novels still appeal to people because they focus on issues that are as _ today as they were when she wrote them. Her novels are about women trying to find a perfect husband, but also explore issues surrounding marriage, friendship and the family. "The plots are fairly timeless stories about human interaction which are familiar to us," Jenkyns says. The most famous book Austen wrote is Pride and Prejudice,a love story betweenElizabeth Bennett and Mr. Darcy. At first the two characters do not get on. They finally fall in love, but still have to overcome opposition to their relationship from their families. All of Austen's books are easy to read, making them popular with children and adults, but they work on different levels so people can take what they need from them, author Kate Henry says. Austen is often praised as the greatest romance writer in the English language, so it is surprising she remained unmarried. "Maybe she was too much of a romantic, waiting for a perfect man," Henry says. Question: According to Henry, Austen remained unmarried because _ . Yes or no, is the answer "the perfect man didn't appears in her life"?
No

Article: Not too long ago, our teacher, being a "tree-hugger"(as the kids call her), had us write an essay on an environmental issue. I was eager to start, but something made me stop. "What is an environmental issue?" one kid asked. "What if we don't care about the environment?" another complained. "It's not like it affects me." These comments _ me. I have always cared about the environment and assumed that others did too. From the surprised look on my teacher's face, I could tell she felt the same way. In no time, I finished my essay. In my essay I wrote about logging , which is an important industry, but if we continue to cut down trees without replacing, it will damage the environment. There are so many things that we can do to save our world. Recycling, of course, is always a good thing, but not everyone has a recycling plant nearby (I don't). There are other ways to help the environment. Plant a tree. Don't waste water. I can't stand it when a person's excuse for not caring is "Nothing is going to happen in my lifetime, so why should I care?" Sure, the chances of something terrible happening are slim, but I want people to realize that if we don't deal with it, someone will have to eventually. Do you want that to be your children? Or your children's children? When my teacher told me to read my essay to my class, I was a little embarrassed because I didn't want everyone to call me "tree-hugger". I realize now that if being a tree-hugger means you care about the environment, I'm a tree-hugger 100 percent. I just wish more people were. Question: At the beginning, the author stopped writing _ . Yes or no, is the answer "because of other kids' comments"?
No

Article: For the most part, it seems, workers in rich countries have little to fear from globalization, and a lot to gain. But is the same thing true for workers in poor countries? The answer is that they are even more likely than their rich-country counterparts to benefit, because they have less to lose and more to gain. Traditional economics takes an optimistic line on integration and the developing countries. Openness to foreign trade and investment should encourage capital to flow to poor economies. In the developing world, capital is scarce, so the returns on investment there should be higher than in the industrialized countries, where the best opportunities to make money by adding capital to labour have already been used up. If poor countries lower their barriers to trade and investment, the theory goes, rich foreigners will want to send over some of their capital. If this inflow of resources arrives in the form of loans or portfolio investment , it will top up domestic savings and loosen the financial restriction on additional investment by local companies. If it arrives in the form of new foreign-controlled operations, FDI, so much the better: this kind of capital brings technology and skills from abroad packaged along with it, with less financial risk as well. In either case, the addition to investment ought to push incomes up, partly by raising the demand for labour and partly by making labour more productive. This is why workers in FDI-receiving countries should be in an even better position to profit from integration than workers in FDI-sending countries. Also, with or without inflows of foreign capital, the same gains from trade should apply in developing countries as in rich ones. This gains from trade logic often arouses suspicion, because the benefits seem to come from nowhere. Surely one side or the other must lose. Not so. The benefits that a rich country gets through trade do not come at the expense of its poor country trading partners, or vice versa. Recall that according to the theory,... Question: Which can be the most appropriate title for this passage? Yes or no, is the answer "Who Benefits the Most"?
Yes