Article: A new study has found that it may be possible to train people to be more intelligent, increasing the brainpower they had at birth. Until now,it has been widely assumed that the kind of mental ability that allows us to solve new problems without having any relevant previous experience--what psychologists call fluid intelligence--is innate and cannot be taught(though people can raise their grades on tests of it by practicing). But in the new study,researchers describe a method for improving this skill,along with experiments to prove it works. The key, researchers found, was carefully structured training in working memory--the kind that allows memorization of a telephone number just long enough to dial it.This type of memory is closely related to fluid intelligence,so the researchers reasoned that improving it might lead to improvements in fluid intelligence. First they measured fluid intelligence of volunteers using standard tests.Then they trained each in a complicated memory task--the child's card game,in which they had to recall a card they saw and heard.During the course, they needed to ignore irrelevant items, monitor ongoing performance,manage two tasks at the same time and connect related items to one another in space and time. The four groups experienced a half-hour of training daily for 8, 12, 17 and 19 days, respectively.To make sure they were not just improving their test-taking skills,the researchers compared them with control groups that took the tests without the training. The results, published Monday in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,were striking.Improvement in the trained groups was a lot greater.Moreover,the longer they trained, the higher their scores were.All performers,from the weakest to the strongest,showed significant improvement. "Our results show you can increase your intelligence with proper training." said Dr Jaeggi, a co-author of the paper."No one knows how long the gains will last after training stops," he added, "and the experiment's design did not allow the... Question: .The researchers thought the key to improving the intelligence was _ . Yes or no, is the answer "improving working memory"?
No

Article: Bicycle lights may not exactly be a problem that needs solving, but the following can be said about most of them ---- they're easily stolen if left on an unattended bike. People riding at dusk can forget to turn them on, and those same people can forget to turn them off when they reach their destination. Well, the makers of the Blink/ Steady Bike Light have set out to address all of those shortcomings. The waterproof Blink/ Steady is so far only available as a tail light, although a head light is on the way. It's fixed onto the bike's seat post. A built- in photosensor tells when it's become dark enough for the light to be required, and allows it to come on once you begin the riding. According to the producers, it isn't fooled by things such as headlights or streetlights. The light also contains an accelerometer, also known as a motion sensor, which can tell when the bike is in motion. Between the two sensors, this means the light will come on only once it's dark enough, and the bike is moving. Even when stopped at red lights, the small movements of the rider will reportedly be enough to keep the light activated---- it'll go out after 30 seconds of complete inactivity. While this does mean that the two sensors are continuously powered up, they go into a very low---- power sleep pattern when the bike is sitting, unused. Light is provided by two5- watt LEDs, seeable over a range of 180 degrees. And power comes from two AAA batteries, which provided up to 200 hours of continuous run time. The designers and engineers behind the Blink/ Steady are now raising money for its commercial production. About US $95 will get you one if they become available. Question: Why is there an accelerometer in the Blink/ Steady Bike Light? Yes or no, is the answer "To tell if the bike is moving."?
No

Q: Article: Daniel Hillel developed drip irrigation techniques. The techniques make farming possible in places where there is not enough water. Because of this, he won this year's World Food Prize. Hillel is using the techniques in his orchards near his home in Israel. Irrigating drop by drop -- called drip irrigation -- has changed agriculture by greatly reducing the amount of water needed. Farmers now rely on it in places from Spain, to Africa, to America. "We in California grow about 50 percent of the fruits and vegetables of the continental United States," says Jan Hopmans from University of California at Davis. "And these drip irrigation techniques make it possible." Hillel got his start in dry land farming in Israel's Negev Desert in the 1950s. "The key was making good use of water," he says. "There's much land. Water is limited." These farmers did not have the advantage of running irrigation water through channels to their crops. So Hillel and others gave plants just what they needed and just where they needed it. "The idea is to use water little by little," Hillel says. It worked so well that Hillel was soon traveling around the world, showing others how to do it. Experts say drip irrigation's importance is growing, as climate change and rising population make water supplies become few in many parts of the world. "This is where water use, climate change and crop production all meet at one point," Hillel says. "And this has been really the essence of my career." A career whose importance can be measured drop by drop. Question: What makes drip irrigation seem increasingly important? Yes or no, is the answer "Water shortages."?
A: No

(Q).
Article: Parents have widely different views on the problem of pocket money . Four new fathers were asked this question and this is how they answered . Ashish Khanna :Although many argue that pocket money helps develop children's sense of value , I don't agree . I wouldn't give my child any pocket money . First of all , I never got pocket money and I seem to have a good value for money . If my child ever needed something and I felt it was areasonable request , I would buy it for him . Sharad Sanghi : No , I wouldn't give my child pocket money because I don't want to create theperception of " her " money and " my " money . Besides , if I refuse to buy her something that I think is bad for her , she may buy it with her pocket money _ . In this way , I would lose control over my child's requests . I feel it also encourages children to care more about money than anything else . I don't want my child to start judging other children by the amount of money or pocket money they have . Rakesh Shah : Yes , I would give my child pocket money . I feel that children should learn to spend money intelligently and not go overboard spending . They will learn what theirlimitations are and feel the difficulty when they have to pay for something that is over in their own pockets . Rajiv Patel : Yes , I would give my child pocket money because it is important that she learns to manage money . I will give her a fixed amount every month and if she spends the money before the month is over , then she will learn a lesson and not spend money so freely . Vikram Desai : Yes , I would certainly give my child pocket money . But I would not give it to him on a weekly or monthly basis . He would have to earn it . If he helped me finish some of my jobs or helped his mother with housework , I would reward him . This helps him realize that " money does not grow on trees " and it requires hard work to earn money . Question: What do Rakesh Shah and Rajiv Patel have in common ? Yes or no, is the answer "They want their children to learn to manage money ."?
(A).
No