Question: I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: A funny thing happened on the way to the communication revolution: we stopped talking to one another. I was walking in the park with a friend recently, and his cell phone rang, interrupting our conversation. There we were, walking and talking on a beautiful sunny day and suddenly, I became invisible, absent from the conversation. The telephone used to connect you to the absent. Now it makes people sitting next to you feel absent. Why is it that the more connected we get, the more disconnected I feel? Every advance in communication technology is a tragedy to the closeness of human interaction. With email and instant messaging over the Internet, we can now communicate without seeing or talking to one another. With voice-mail, you can conduct entire conversations without ever reaching anyone. If my mom has a question, I just leave the answer on her machine. As almost every contact we can imagine between human beings gets automated, the emotional distance index goes up. You can't even call a person to get the phone number of another person any more. Directory assistance is almost always fully automated. I am not against modern technology. I own a cell phone, an ATM card, a voice-mail system, and an email account. Giving them up isn't wise. They're a great help to us. It's some of their possible consequences that make me feel uneasy. More and more, I find myself hiding behind email to do a job meant for conversations or being relieved with voice-mail picking up because I don't really have time to talk. The industry devoted to helping me keep in touch is making me lonelier. Question: Which of the following would be the best title of the passage? Options: A: The Advance of Modern Technology B: The Consequences of Communication Technology C: The Story of Communication Revolution D: The Automation of Modern Communication
Answer: B

Question: I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: A small boy sat on the street with a hat by his feet. He held up a sign which said: " I am blind, please help". There were only a few coins in the hat. A man was walking by. He took a few coins from his pocket and dropped them into the hat. He then took the sign, turned it around, and wrote some words. He put the sign back so that everyone who walked by would see the new words. Soon the hat began to fill up. A lot more people were giving money to the blind boy. That afternoon the man who had changed the sign came to see how things were. The boy recognized his footsteps and asked :"Were you the one who changed my sign this morning? What did you write?" The man said: "I only wrote the truth. I said what you said but in a different way." What he had written was: "Today is a beautiful day but I cannot see it." Do you think the first sign and the second sign were saying the same thing? Of course both signs told people the boy was blind. But the first sign simply told people to help by putting some money in the hat. The second sign told people that they were able to enjoy the day, but the boy could not enjoy it because he was blind. The first sign simply said the boy was blind. The second sign told people they were so lucky that they were not blind. There are at least two lessons we can learn from this simple story. The first is: Be thankful for what you have. Someone else has less. Help where you can. The second is:Be creative. Think differently. There is always a better way! Question: What was the boy doing on the street? Options: A: He was selling his old hat. B: He was busy counting coins. C: He was begging for money. D: He was showing his handwriting.
Answer: C

Question: I'm taking a test and have to guess the right answer to the question after the article. Article: A couple of years ago, those who forecast that oil price would reach $ 100 a barrel were seen as doomsters. However, now some are predicting $ 200 a barrel. Had economists been told that oil price would barely pause at $ 100 before reaching the recent peak of nearly $ 127, they would no doubt have forecast terrible economic consequences. But the global economy, though interrupted by the high price of energy, is still chugging along. Meanwhile, inflation has picked up, but the headlinerates of inflation in most developed countries are nowhere near the levels seen in the 1970s and 1980s. There are three explanations for the oil price's unclear impact. The first is that nowadays developed economies are more efficient in their use of energy, thanks partly to the increased importance of service industries and the diminished role of manufacturing . According to the Energy Information Administration, the energy intensity of America's GDP fell by 42% between 1980 and 2007. A second theory is that the oil-price rise has been steady, not sudden, giving the economy time to adjust. Giovanni Serio of Goldman Sachs points out that in 1973 there was a severe supply shock because of the oil embargo , when the world had to cope with 10%-15% less crude almost overnight. Not this time. The third explanation turns the argument on its head; rather than oil harming the global economy, it is global expansion that is driving up the price of oil. The most important factor is the shift in favor of the developing economies. America has responded to high price in familiar fashion: UBS forecasts that demand will drop by 1.1% this year and will be no higher in 2010 than it was in 2004. But the demand from China and other emerging markets is more than offsetting this shortfall. Question: What is the passage mainly talking about? Options: A: The prediction of economists. B: The situation of economy C: The increase of oil price D: The American response to high price
Answer:
C