Article: Of all the animals in the animal kingdom, which one (aside from man) is the cleverest? There are several ways of measuring the intelligence of animals. In one test a scientist sets three same cans on a table. While the animal watches, he puts food under one of the cans. Then he leads the animal away. Some time later, he brings it back to see if it remembers which can has the food. No smelling is allowed; the animal must go directly to the correct can or it fails. This is called a delayed-response test. The idea is to find out how long an animal's memory can keep information. The scientists would try showing the cans to the animal one hour later, or two hours later, or even a full day later. They discovered that chimpanzees and elephants have the best memory, and were able to remember the correct can for at least twenty hours. No other animal is close. Dogs came next, but they only remember for nine hours. To settle the matter, the scientists designed a huge maze and ran the chimps and elephants through it. The maze was very difficult, with many blind paths and dead ends. It took the chimps ten minutes to find their way out. The elephants needed half an hour. Even allowing for the elephants' slower rate of speed, the test shows that chimpanzees are the cleverest animals. From this and other tests, the scientists drew the following conclusion: an animal's intelligence depends on the size of its brain in proportion to the size of its body. The elephant's brain weighs ten pounds. But this is only 1/600th of its 6,000 pounds body. A chimp's brain weighs about one pound, or 1/120th of its total body weight. So in proportion to its body size, the chimp has four times as much brain as the elephant----more brain for less body. The chimp is the champ! Question: According to the passage, a rhinoceros that weighs 2100 pounds, and has a 3-pound brain is _ . Yes or no, is the answer "less clever than an elephant"?
No

Article: Have you ever felt you were being watched? Some new technologies might make you feel that way. Digital billboards are being created with ability to recognize certain characteristics. These high-tech devices have cameras pointed at the people on the street, and software that tries to recognize people by age and gender. A computer inside the billboard then uses the information to display ads that are directed at the people who are looking at the billboard. For example, if a man passes a billboard featuring an ad for cosmetics, the computer can change the ad to something that is more likely to catch the man's attention, such as football games. While advertisers see this as a great opportunity to reach their target customers, some people feel that this kind of profiling is an invasion of their privacy. People are now much more aware of how information is exposed, shared, bought, and sold on the Internet. Now this debate will involve technologies such as "smart" billboards. But advertisers claim that they are sensitive to people's concerns about privacy--companies that have tested the billboards in Japan and the U.S. assure consumers that the billboards can only guess your age and gender, but they will not be able to recognize your face or obtain any personal information about you. Until recently, this kind of personal advertising has been mostly limited to the Internet. Search engines like Google and Bing can follow what we search for because each computer that connects to those sites has a unique identity. Companies then pay search engines to use this information to display ads for products and services that you have searched for. So if you search for travel information, you are likely to see ads for airlines and hotels. This kind of advertising has proven to be much more effective--and valuable--than traditional advertising. In addition to taking steps to deliver more personalized messages, advertisers are using billboards to offer more useful information. Digital billboards can connect to the Internet to... Question: Why is Google mentioned in the passage? Yes or no, is the answer "It is an example of a search engine that sells information to companies."?
No

Q: Article: People who drink alcohol earn more at their jobs than non-drinkers, according to a US study that highlighted "social capital " gained from drinking. The study concluded that drinkers earn 10-14 percent more than _ and that men who drink socially bring home an additional seven percent in pay. "Social drinking builds social capital," said Edward String ham, an economics 'professor, "Social drinkers are outgoing, building relationships, and keeping in contacts, which results in bigger paychecks." The researchers said the most likely explanation is that drinkers have a wider range of social contacts that help provide better job and business opportunities. "Drinkers may be able to socialize more with clients and co-workers, giving drinkers ;an advantage in important relationships.Drinking may also provide individuals with opportunities to learn people, business, and social skills." They also said these conclusions provide arguments against policies aimed at controlling alcohol use in university and public places. "Not only do anti-alcohol policies reduce drinkers' fun, but they may also decrease earnings," the study said, "One of the consequences of alcohol restrictions is that they push drinking into private behavior.By preventing people from drinking in public, anti-alcohol policies ignores one of the most important aspects of drinking: increased social capital." The researchers found some differences in the economic effects of drinking among men and women.They concluded that men who drink earn 10 percent more than non-drinkers and women drinkers earn 14 percent more than non-drinkers. However, unlike men, who get a 7 percent income increase from drinking in bars, women drinkers who visit bars frequently do not show higher earnings than those who do not visit bars. Question: What's NOT the consequence of anti-alcohol policy ? Yes or no, is the answer "Drinkers' income increased because they spend less money on drinking."?
A: No

*Question*
Article: When Harvard was founded in 1636, there were no other colleges in the American colonies, and it would become the model for many of those that followed. When it began requiring applicants to take a test known as the SAT in 1935, Harvard started another trend. Two years ago, after it announced an aggressive new financial-aid policy, it helped push social class to the center of the national debate over higher education and forced two of its main competitors, Stanford and Yale, to follow its lead. Last week. Harvard began to make another effort to affect higher education in its image, its president, Derek Bok, announced that the college would abandon its early admissions program, which for decades has allowed high school seniors to apply in October and get an answer yes, no or maybe - in December, shortly before the regular deadline for applications. Harvard officials argue that the program is beneficial to rich students who don't need to compare financial-aid offers from various colleges. After the announcement, many people within education urged other colleges to take a similar step. "We're thrilled," said Laurie Kobick, a college counselor at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Alexandria, Va. "I think it's going to make admissions better in so many different ways. It will indeed go a small way toward leveling the field among applicants. Of course, it will also have an effect on colleges, and the biggest winner will almost certainly be Harvard. a fact that may prevent many other colleges - perhaps all of them - from following Hazard this time. Because any college that does so will risk losing some of its best applicants." Question: By abandoning early admissions program, Harvard wants _ . Yes or no, is the answer "to influence higher education in its own way"?
**Answer**
Yes