Ques: Article: There are a lot of reasons to the popularity of football. All around the world, millions play the sport and many like to watch it. Some would say that the simplicity of game is the main reason for its popularity. But that is not right, because this way, running a marathon or a race would be the most popular sport in the world. In fact, it isn't. Football is the most popular of all sports. The main reason for the popularity of any sport is the room for creativity inside this sport. Because football has plenty of room for creativity, where the player can use his mind and body to do anything in order to get hold of the ball and score and keep the other team from scoring to win the match. All within a set of rules that are made mainly to keep the game clean and better, football becomes the most popular sport in the world. Another reason is the fact that this game doesn't need expensive equipments. All the kids in poor third world countries play it, they just need a ball and an empty playground, and that would ensure a quality time for a group of kids who want to enjoy their time. The Federation International de Football Association (FIFA) knows this fact and they always try to keep rules and regulations applicable for the poorer countries. For fans of watching the sport, it is so entertaining to watch the skills and talents of the players in a match. And also the anticipation and the fact that anything could happen is so compelling and engaging in the 90 or 120 minutes of the game, so results could change in the dying moments of the game. For some special matches, they are better than any thriller movie, because you really don't know what is going to happen afterwards. Question: Football is popular to many people probably because _ . Yes or no, is the answer "it is not only creative but also interesting"?
Ans: No

Ques: Article: When it's five o'clock, people leave their office. The length of the workday, for many workers, is defined by time. They leave when the clock tells them they're done. These days, the time is everywhere: not just on clocks or watches, but on cell-phones and computers. That may be a bad thing, particularly at work. New research shows that clock-based work schedules hinder morale and creativity. Clock-timers organize their day by blocks of minutes and hours. For example: a meeting from 9 am to 10 a.m., research from 10 a.m. to noon, etc. On the other hand, task-timers have a list of things they want to accomplish. They work down the list, each task starts when the previous task is completed. It is said that all of us employ a mix of both these types of planning. What, then, are the effects of thinking about time in these different ways? Does one make us more productive? Better at the tasks at hand? Happier? In experiments conducted by Tamar Avnet and Anne-Laure Sellier, they had participants organize different activities--from project planning, holiday shopping, to yoga--by time or to-do list to measure how they performed under "clock time" vs "task time." They found clock timers to be more efficient but less happy because they felt little control over their lives. Task timers are happier and more creative, but less productive. They tend to enjoy the moment when something good is happening, and seize opportunities that come up. The researchers argue that task-based organizing tends to be undervalued and under-supported in the business culture. Smart companies, they believe, will try to bake more task-based planning into their strategies. This might be a small change to the way we view work and the office, but the researchers argue that it challenges a widespread characteristic of the economy: work organized by clock time. While most people will still probably need,and be, to some extent, clock-timers, task-based timing should be used when performing a job that requires more creativity. It'll make those tasks... Question: What does the author think of time displayed everywhere? Yes or no, is the answer "It may have a negative effect on creative work."?
Ans: Yes

Ques: Article: Is a mouse that can speak acceptable? How about a dog with human hands or feet? Scientists, the people with the know-how to make such things happen, are now thinking about whether such experiments are morally right or not. On Nov. 10, Britain's Academy of Medical Sciences launched a study on the use of animals with human materials in scientific research. The work is expected to take at least a year, but its leaders hope it will lead to guidelines for scientists in Britain and around the world on how far _ can go mixing human genes into animals in search of ways to fight human diseases. "Do these constructs challenge our idea of what it is to be human?" asked Martin Bobrow, a professor of medical genetics at Cambridge University and chair of a 14-member group looking into the issue. "It is important that we consider these questions now so that appropriate boundaries are recognized." Using human material in animals is not new. Scientists have already created monkeys that have a human form of the Huntingdon's gene so they can study how the disease develops; and mice with livers made from human cells are being used to study the effects of new drugs. However, scientists say the technology to put ever greater amounts of human genetic material into animals is spreading quickly around the world --- raising the possibility that some scientists in some places may want to go further than is morally acceptable. Last year in Britain there was a lively debate over new laws allowing the creation of human-animal embryos for experiments. On one side of the debate were religious groups, who claimed that such science interferes with nature. Opposing them were scientists who pointed out that such experiments were vital to research cures for diseases. The experts will publish reports after the end of the study, in which they will give definitions for animal embryos with human genes or cells, look at safety and animal welfare issues, and consider the right legal framework to work within. Question: Scientists do research of mixing human genes into animals in order to _ . Yes or no, is the answer "to find ways to fight human diseases"?
Ans: No

Ques: Article: There are many commonly held beliefs about eyeglasses and eyesight that are not proved facts. For example, some people believe that wearing glasses too soon weaken the eyes. But there is nothing to show that the structure of eyes is changed by wearing galsses at a young age. Wearing the wrong galsses, however, can prove harmful. Studies show that only children can develop loss of sihgt if they have the wrong glasses. We have all heard some of the common myths about how eyesight get bad. Too little light makes the eyes work harder, so they do get tired and strained . Eyestrain also resulsts from reading a lot, reading in bed, and watching too much television. But, although eyestrain may cause some pain or headaches, it does not harm eyesight all the time. Another myth about eyes is that they can be replaced from one person to another . It is quite difficult to connect aneyeball to a new brain.And it is impossible to replace a whole eyeball to a new person. Only certain parts of the eye can be replaced now. But if we keep clearing up the myths and learning more about the eyes, some day it may be possible to replace a full eyeball. Question: This passage mainly tells us that _ . Yes or no, is the answer "people have many wrong beliefs about eyes and sight."?
Ans:
Yes