(Q).
Article: Some people like modern art, while others say that is rubbish. But a cleaner who works in the Tate Gallery in London isn't able to tell the difference. The woman, whose name isn't known, mistook a work of art by the German painter Gustav Metzger for a bag of rubbish, and threw it out with other bags. The plastic bad, which contained pieces of paper and cardboard, was later recovered outside the gallery, but the artist thought that it was too damaged to be put on show again. 78-year-old Mr Metzger explained that the exhibit, which he said was a copy of a similar work he had created in 1960, was meant to show that all art is temporary and "finite" . Embarrassed officials at the museum said that they had had to call a meeting with cleaners to explain which things should not be touched. They would not say whether Mr Metzger would be paid any compensation for the incident. However, to make absolutely sure the same thing would not happen again, they decided to cover Mr Metzger's work every evening with a colored cloth. In this way the cleaners arriving after the gallery had closed to the general public would realize they should not touch it. This is not the first time that museum cleaners have had trouble distinguishing exhibits from rubbish. In 2001, in another London gallery, a cleaner threw away a work by the well-known British artist Damien Hirst. It was an arrangement of empty beer bottles, coffee cups, and overflowing ashtrays, which were meant to indicate the chaos in the life of an artist. However, cleaners don't always throw things away--sometimes they clean them! This was the case with a dirty asking what the bath was doing in the gallery, the cleaners simply scrubbed it clean. Question: Which of the following is not true? Yes or no, is the answer "Mr Metzger would be paid much compensation"?
(A).
No

(Q).
Article: Most recently, it's very common in students who need a parent present for job interviews. Naturally, it's easy to blame the students in these situations, but the bigger problem is us. We--as parents--are so eager to shelter our kids that we fail to realize that this in itself is harming them.As the mother of two young sons, I have to remind myself constantly that the biggest responsibility I have as a parent is to help them develop the skills needed to live in, to live without me.So, I'll let them fail. I'll let them fail because as long as they are safe and warm inside their comfort zones, they will never grow.And failure -- along with loss, heartbreak, disappointment, etc.-- will be part of growth for them.Call me the anti-tiger mom, but leaving them alone, is my way of helping them become equipped to fit in this world as we know it today.From terrorism and seemingly endless natural disasters, to our national debt and beyond, if we expect the next generation to stand up to the very real problems of our time, we need to stop feeding them and start teaching them how to fish. My children now are becoming little masters of compromise, but they try to negotiate everything now.It's a small price to help them learn a skill they'll use for the rest of their lives, including when I don't accompany them on job interviews. Question: Why do parents accompany their kids on job interviews? Yes or no, is the answer "Because they want to protect their kids from difficulties."?
(A).
No

(Q).
Article: Our risk of cancer rises dramatically as we age. So it makes sense that the elderly should be routinely screened for new tumors -- or doesn't it? While such vigilant tracking of cancer is a good thing in general, researchers are increasingly questioning whether all of this testing is necessary for the elderly. With the percentage of people over age 65 expected to nearly double by 2050, it's important to weigh the health benefits of screening against the risks and costs of routine testing. In many cases, screening can lead to additional biopsies and surgeries to remove cancer, which can cause side effects, while the cancers themselves may be slow-growing and may not pose serious health problems in patients' remaining years. But the message that everyone must screen for cancer has become so ingrained that when health care experts recommended that women under 50 and over 74 stop screening for breast cancer, it caused a riotous reaction among doctors, patients and advocacy groups. It's hard to uproot deeply held beliefs about cancer screening with scientific data. Certainly, there are people over age 75 who have had cancers detected by routine screening, and gained several extra years of life because of treatment. And clearly, people over age 75 who have other risk factors for cancer, such as a family history or prior personal experience with the disease, should continue to get screened regularly. But for the remainder, the risk of cancer, while increased at the end of life, must be balanced with other factors like remaining life expectancy . A recent study suggests that doctors start to make more objective decisions about who will truly benefit from screening- especially considering the explosion of the elderly that will soon swell our population. It's not an easy calculation to make, but one that make sense for the whole patient. Dr. Otis Brawley said, "Many doctors are ordering these tests purely to cover themselves. We need to think about the rational use of health care and stop talking about the rationing of... Question: What is the conventional view about women screening for breast cancer? Yes or no, is the answer "It is a must for adult women."?
(A).
No