option
list | question
stringlengths 11
354
| article
stringlengths 231
6.74k
| id
stringlengths 5
8
| label
int64 0
3
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
[
"Many more plants grew in places where ants were present than where they were absent.",
"The ants preferred plants with low seed production to plants with high seed production.",
"The plants occupied by ants produced many more seeds than those that were not occupied by ants.",
"The plants that grew in places without ants were much smaller and weaker than those that grew in places where ants were present."
] | According to paragraph 5, what did Bentley's comparative study show? | Many plants - one or more species of at least 68 different families - can secrete nectar even when they have no blossoms, because they bear extrafloral nectaries (structures that produce nectar) on stems, leaves, leaf stems, or other structures. These plants usually occur where ants are abundant, most in the tropics but some in temperate areas. Among those of northeastern North America are various plums, cherries, roses, hawthorns, poplars, and oaks. Like floral nectar, extrafloral nectar consists mainly of water with a high content of dissolved sugars and, in some plants, small amounts of amino acids. The extrafloral nectaries of some plants are known to attract ants and other insects, but the evolutionary history of most plants with these nectaries is unknown. Nevertheless, most ecologists believe that all extrafloral nectaries attract insects that will defend the plant.
Ants are portably the most frequent and certainly the most persistent defenders of plants. Since the highly active worker ants require a great deal of energy, plants exploit this need by providing extrafloral nectar that supplies ants with abundant energy. To return this favor, ants guard the nectaries, driving away or killing intruding insects that might compete with ants for nectar. Many of these intruders are herbivorous and would eat the leaves of the plants.
Biologists once thought that secretion of extrafloral nectar has some purely internal physiological function, and that ants provide no benefit whatsoever to the plants that secrete it. This view and the opposing "protectionist" hypothesis that ants defend plants had been disputed for over a hundred years when, in 1910, a skeptical William Morton Wheeler commented on the controversy. He called for proof of the protectionist view: that visitations of the ants confer protection on the plants and that in the absence of the insects a much greater number would perish or fail to produce flowers or seeds than when the insects are present. That we now have an abundance of the proof that was called for was established when Barbara Bentley reviewed the relevant evidence in 1977, and since then many more observations and experiments have provided still further proof that ants benefit plants.
One example shows how ants attracted to extrafloral nectaries protect morning glories against attacking insects. The principal insect enemies of the North American morning glory feed mainly on its flowers or fruits rather than its leaves. Grasshoppers feeding on flowers indirectly block pollination and the production of seeds by destroying the corolla or the stigma, which receives the pollen grains and on which the pollen germinates. Without their colorful corolla, flowers do not attract pollinators and are not fertilized. An adult grasshopper can consume a large corolla, about 2.5 inches long, in an hour. Caterpillars and seed beetles affect seed production directly. Caterpillars devour the ovaries, where the seeds are produced, and seed beetle larvae eat seeds as they burrow in developing fruits.
Extrafloral nectaries at the base of each sepal attract several kinds of insects, but 96 percent of them are ants, several different species of them. When buds are still small, less than a quarter of an inch long, the sepal nectaries are already present and producing nectar. They continue to do so as the flower develops and while the fruit matures. Observations leave little doubt that ants protect morning glory flowers and fruits from the combined enemy force of grasshoppers, caterpillars, and seed beetles. Bentley compares the seed production of six plants that grew where there were no ants with that of seventeen plants that were occupied by ants. Unprotected plants bore only 45 seeds per plant, but plants occupied by ants bore 211 seeds per plant. Although ants are not big enough to kill or seriously injure grasshoppers, they drive them away by nipping at their feet. Seed beetles are more vulnerable because they are much smaller than grasshoppers. The ants prey on the adult beetles, disturb females as they lay their eggs on developing fruits, and eat many of the eggs they do manage to lay. | 3622.txt | 2 |
[
"driving adult beetles off the plants by nipping at their feet.",
"catching and eating adult beetles.",
"eating beetle eggs they find on developing fruits.",
"making it difficult for beetles to lay eggs on developing fruits."
] | According to paragraph 5, ants defend morning glory plants from seed beetles in each of the following ways EXCEPT: | Many plants - one or more species of at least 68 different families - can secrete nectar even when they have no blossoms, because they bear extrafloral nectaries (structures that produce nectar) on stems, leaves, leaf stems, or other structures. These plants usually occur where ants are abundant, most in the tropics but some in temperate areas. Among those of northeastern North America are various plums, cherries, roses, hawthorns, poplars, and oaks. Like floral nectar, extrafloral nectar consists mainly of water with a high content of dissolved sugars and, in some plants, small amounts of amino acids. The extrafloral nectaries of some plants are known to attract ants and other insects, but the evolutionary history of most plants with these nectaries is unknown. Nevertheless, most ecologists believe that all extrafloral nectaries attract insects that will defend the plant.
Ants are portably the most frequent and certainly the most persistent defenders of plants. Since the highly active worker ants require a great deal of energy, plants exploit this need by providing extrafloral nectar that supplies ants with abundant energy. To return this favor, ants guard the nectaries, driving away or killing intruding insects that might compete with ants for nectar. Many of these intruders are herbivorous and would eat the leaves of the plants.
Biologists once thought that secretion of extrafloral nectar has some purely internal physiological function, and that ants provide no benefit whatsoever to the plants that secrete it. This view and the opposing "protectionist" hypothesis that ants defend plants had been disputed for over a hundred years when, in 1910, a skeptical William Morton Wheeler commented on the controversy. He called for proof of the protectionist view: that visitations of the ants confer protection on the plants and that in the absence of the insects a much greater number would perish or fail to produce flowers or seeds than when the insects are present. That we now have an abundance of the proof that was called for was established when Barbara Bentley reviewed the relevant evidence in 1977, and since then many more observations and experiments have provided still further proof that ants benefit plants.
One example shows how ants attracted to extrafloral nectaries protect morning glories against attacking insects. The principal insect enemies of the North American morning glory feed mainly on its flowers or fruits rather than its leaves. Grasshoppers feeding on flowers indirectly block pollination and the production of seeds by destroying the corolla or the stigma, which receives the pollen grains and on which the pollen germinates. Without their colorful corolla, flowers do not attract pollinators and are not fertilized. An adult grasshopper can consume a large corolla, about 2.5 inches long, in an hour. Caterpillars and seed beetles affect seed production directly. Caterpillars devour the ovaries, where the seeds are produced, and seed beetle larvae eat seeds as they burrow in developing fruits.
Extrafloral nectaries at the base of each sepal attract several kinds of insects, but 96 percent of them are ants, several different species of them. When buds are still small, less than a quarter of an inch long, the sepal nectaries are already present and producing nectar. They continue to do so as the flower develops and while the fruit matures. Observations leave little doubt that ants protect morning glory flowers and fruits from the combined enemy force of grasshoppers, caterpillars, and seed beetles. Bentley compares the seed production of six plants that grew where there were no ants with that of seventeen plants that were occupied by ants. Unprotected plants bore only 45 seeds per plant, but plants occupied by ants bore 211 seeds per plant. Although ants are not big enough to kill or seriously injure grasshoppers, they drive them away by nipping at their feet. Seed beetles are more vulnerable because they are much smaller than grasshoppers. The ants prey on the adult beetles, disturb females as they lay their eggs on developing fruits, and eat many of the eggs they do manage to lay. | 3622.txt | 0 |
[
"inquiring minds are more important than scientific experiments",
"science advances when fruitful researches are conducted",
"scientists seldom forget the essential nature of research",
"unpredictability weighs less than prediction in scientific research"
] | The author wants to prove with the example of Isaac Newton that . | Science, in practice, depends far less on the experiments it prepares than on the preparedness of the minds of the men who watch the experiments. Sir Isaac Newton supposedly discovered gravity through the fall of an apple. Apples had been falling in many places for centuries and thousands of people had seen them fall. But Newton for years had been curious about the cause of the orbital motion of the moon and planets. What kept them in place? Why didn't they fall out of the sky? The fact that the apple fell down toward the earth and not up into the tree answered the question he had been asking himself about those larger fruits of the heavens, the moon and the planets.
How many men would have considered the possibility of an apple falling up into the tree? Newton did because he was not trying to predict anything. He was just wondering. His mind was ready for the unpredictable. Unpredictability is part of the essential nature of research. If you don't have unpredictable things, you don't have research. Scientists tend to forget this when writing their cut and dried reports for the technical journals, but history is filled with examples of it.
In talking to some scientists, particularly younger ones, you might gather the impression that they find the "scientific method" a substitute for imaginative thought. I've attended research conferences where a scientist has been asked what he thinks about the advisability of continuing a certain experiment. The scientist has frowned, looked at the graphs, and said "the data are still inconclusive." "We know that," the men from the budget office have said, "but what do you think? Is it worthwhile going on? What do you think we might expect?" The scientist has been shocked at having even been asked to speculate.
What this amounts to, of course, is that the scientist has become the victim of his own writings. He has put forward unquestioned claims so consistently that he not only believes them himself, but has convinced industrial and business management that they are true. If experiments are planned and carried out according to plan as faithfully as the reports in the science journals indicate, then it is perfectly logical for management to expect research to produce results measurable in dollars and cents. It is entirely reasonable for auditors to believe that scientists who know exactly where they are going and how they will get there should not be distracted by the necessity of keeping one eye on the cash register while the other eye is on the microscope. Nor, if regularity and conformity to a standard pattern are as desirable to the scientist as the writing of his papers would appear to reflect, is management to be blamed for discriminating against the "odd balls" among researchers in favor of more conventional thinkers who "work well with the team." | 1047.txt | 0 |
[
"shouldn't replace \"scientific method\" with imaginative thought",
"shouldn't neglect to speculate on unpredictable things",
"should write more concise reports for technical journals",
"should be confident about their research findings"
] | The author asserts that scientists . | Science, in practice, depends far less on the experiments it prepares than on the preparedness of the minds of the men who watch the experiments. Sir Isaac Newton supposedly discovered gravity through the fall of an apple. Apples had been falling in many places for centuries and thousands of people had seen them fall. But Newton for years had been curious about the cause of the orbital motion of the moon and planets. What kept them in place? Why didn't they fall out of the sky? The fact that the apple fell down toward the earth and not up into the tree answered the question he had been asking himself about those larger fruits of the heavens, the moon and the planets.
How many men would have considered the possibility of an apple falling up into the tree? Newton did because he was not trying to predict anything. He was just wondering. His mind was ready for the unpredictable. Unpredictability is part of the essential nature of research. If you don't have unpredictable things, you don't have research. Scientists tend to forget this when writing their cut and dried reports for the technical journals, but history is filled with examples of it.
In talking to some scientists, particularly younger ones, you might gather the impression that they find the "scientific method" a substitute for imaginative thought. I've attended research conferences where a scientist has been asked what he thinks about the advisability of continuing a certain experiment. The scientist has frowned, looked at the graphs, and said "the data are still inconclusive." "We know that," the men from the budget office have said, "but what do you think? Is it worthwhile going on? What do you think we might expect?" The scientist has been shocked at having even been asked to speculate.
What this amounts to, of course, is that the scientist has become the victim of his own writings. He has put forward unquestioned claims so consistently that he not only believes them himself, but has convinced industrial and business management that they are true. If experiments are planned and carried out according to plan as faithfully as the reports in the science journals indicate, then it is perfectly logical for management to expect research to produce results measurable in dollars and cents. It is entirely reasonable for auditors to believe that scientists who know exactly where they are going and how they will get there should not be distracted by the necessity of keeping one eye on the cash register while the other eye is on the microscope. Nor, if regularity and conformity to a standard pattern are as desirable to the scientist as the writing of his papers would appear to reflect, is management to be blamed for discriminating against the "odd balls" among researchers in favor of more conventional thinkers who "work well with the team." | 1047.txt | 1 |
[
"have a keen interest in prediction",
"often speculate on the future",
"think highly of creative thinking",
"stick to \"scientific method\""
] | It seems that some young scientists . | Science, in practice, depends far less on the experiments it prepares than on the preparedness of the minds of the men who watch the experiments. Sir Isaac Newton supposedly discovered gravity through the fall of an apple. Apples had been falling in many places for centuries and thousands of people had seen them fall. But Newton for years had been curious about the cause of the orbital motion of the moon and planets. What kept them in place? Why didn't they fall out of the sky? The fact that the apple fell down toward the earth and not up into the tree answered the question he had been asking himself about those larger fruits of the heavens, the moon and the planets.
How many men would have considered the possibility of an apple falling up into the tree? Newton did because he was not trying to predict anything. He was just wondering. His mind was ready for the unpredictable. Unpredictability is part of the essential nature of research. If you don't have unpredictable things, you don't have research. Scientists tend to forget this when writing their cut and dried reports for the technical journals, but history is filled with examples of it.
In talking to some scientists, particularly younger ones, you might gather the impression that they find the "scientific method" a substitute for imaginative thought. I've attended research conferences where a scientist has been asked what he thinks about the advisability of continuing a certain experiment. The scientist has frowned, looked at the graphs, and said "the data are still inconclusive." "We know that," the men from the budget office have said, "but what do you think? Is it worthwhile going on? What do you think we might expect?" The scientist has been shocked at having even been asked to speculate.
What this amounts to, of course, is that the scientist has become the victim of his own writings. He has put forward unquestioned claims so consistently that he not only believes them himself, but has convinced industrial and business management that they are true. If experiments are planned and carried out according to plan as faithfully as the reports in the science journals indicate, then it is perfectly logical for management to expect research to produce results measurable in dollars and cents. It is entirely reasonable for auditors to believe that scientists who know exactly where they are going and how they will get there should not be distracted by the necessity of keeping one eye on the cash register while the other eye is on the microscope. Nor, if regularity and conformity to a standard pattern are as desirable to the scientist as the writing of his papers would appear to reflect, is management to be blamed for discriminating against the "odd balls" among researchers in favor of more conventional thinkers who "work well with the team." | 1047.txt | 3 |
[
"may not be as profitable as they are expected",
"can be measured in dollars and cents",
"rely on conformity to a standard pattern",
"are mostly underestimated by management"
] | The author implies that the results of scientific research . | Science, in practice, depends far less on the experiments it prepares than on the preparedness of the minds of the men who watch the experiments. Sir Isaac Newton supposedly discovered gravity through the fall of an apple. Apples had been falling in many places for centuries and thousands of people had seen them fall. But Newton for years had been curious about the cause of the orbital motion of the moon and planets. What kept them in place? Why didn't they fall out of the sky? The fact that the apple fell down toward the earth and not up into the tree answered the question he had been asking himself about those larger fruits of the heavens, the moon and the planets.
How many men would have considered the possibility of an apple falling up into the tree? Newton did because he was not trying to predict anything. He was just wondering. His mind was ready for the unpredictable. Unpredictability is part of the essential nature of research. If you don't have unpredictable things, you don't have research. Scientists tend to forget this when writing their cut and dried reports for the technical journals, but history is filled with examples of it.
In talking to some scientists, particularly younger ones, you might gather the impression that they find the "scientific method" a substitute for imaginative thought. I've attended research conferences where a scientist has been asked what he thinks about the advisability of continuing a certain experiment. The scientist has frowned, looked at the graphs, and said "the data are still inconclusive." "We know that," the men from the budget office have said, "but what do you think? Is it worthwhile going on? What do you think we might expect?" The scientist has been shocked at having even been asked to speculate.
What this amounts to, of course, is that the scientist has become the victim of his own writings. He has put forward unquestioned claims so consistently that he not only believes them himself, but has convinced industrial and business management that they are true. If experiments are planned and carried out according to plan as faithfully as the reports in the science journals indicate, then it is perfectly logical for management to expect research to produce results measurable in dollars and cents. It is entirely reasonable for auditors to believe that scientists who know exactly where they are going and how they will get there should not be distracted by the necessity of keeping one eye on the cash register while the other eye is on the microscope. Nor, if regularity and conformity to a standard pattern are as desirable to the scientist as the writing of his papers would appear to reflect, is management to be blamed for discriminating against the "odd balls" among researchers in favor of more conventional thinkers who "work well with the team." | 1047.txt | 0 |
[
"The major changes in climate over thepast millennia",
"The degree to which the climate variesnaturally",
"The best method for measuring climaticchange",
"The millennium when humans began tointerfere with the climate"
] | According to paragraph 1, which of the following must we find out in order to determine the impact of human activitiesupon climate? | One of the most difficult aspects of deciding whether current climatic events reveal evidence of the impact of human activities is that it is hard to get a measure of what constitutes the natural variability of the climate. We know that over the past millennia the climate has undergone major changes without any significant human intervention. We also know that the global climate system is immensely complicated and that everything is in some way connected, and so the system is capable of fluctuating in unexpected ways. We need therefore to know how much the climate can vary of its own accord in order to interpret with confidence the extent to which recent changes are natural as opposed to being the result of human activities.
Instrumental records do not go back far enough to provide us with reliable measurements of global climatic variability on timescales longer than a century. What we do know is that as we include longer time intervals, the record shows increasing evidence of slow swings in climate between different regimes. To build up a better picture of fluctuations appreciably further back in time requires us to use proxy records.
Over long periods of time, substances whose physical and chemical properties change with the ambient climate at the time can be deposited in a systematic way to provide a continuous record of changes in those properties overtime, sometimes for hundreds or thousands of years. Generally, the layering occurs on an annual basis, hence the observed changes in the records can be dated. Information on temperature, rainfall, and other aspects of the climate that can be inferred from the systematic changes in properties is usually referred to as proxy data. Proxy temperature records have been reconstructed from ice core drilled out of the central Greenland ice cap, calcite shells embedded in layered lake sediments in Western Europe, ocean floor sediment cores from the tropical Atlantic Ocean, ice cores from Peruvian glaciers, and ice cores from eastern Antarctica. While these records provide broadly consistent indications that temperature variations can occur on a global scale, there are nonetheless some intriguing differences, which suggest that the pattern of temperature variations in regional climates can also differ significantly from each other.
What the proxy records make abundantly clear is that there have been significant natural changes in the climate over timescales longer than a few thousand years. Equally striking, however, is the relative stability of the climate in the past 10,000 years (the Holocene perioD.
To the extent that the coverage of the global climate from these records can provide a measure of its true variability, it should at least indicate how all the natural causes of climate change have combined. These include the chaotic fluctuations of the atmosphere, the slower but equally erratic behavior of the oceans, changes in the land surfaces, and the extent of ice and snow. Also included will be any variations that have arisen from volcanic activity, solar activity, and, possibly, human activities.
One way to estimate how all the various processes leading to climate variability will combine is by using computer models of the global climate. They can do only so much to represent the full complexity of the global climate and hence may give only limited information about natural variability. Studies suggest that to date the variability in computer simulations is considerably smaller than in data obtained from the proxy records.
In addition to the internal variability of the global climate system itself, there is the added factor of external influences, such as volcanoes and solar activity. There is a growing body of opinion that both these physical variations have a measurable impact on the climate. Thus we need to be able to include these in our deliberations. Some current analyses conclude that volcanoes and solar activity explain quite a considerable amount of the observed variability in the period from the seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries, but that they cannot be invoked to explain the rapid warming in recent decades. | 950.txt | 1 |
[
"they are more-reliable measures ofclimatic variability in the past century",
"they provide more-accurate measures oflocal temperatures",
"they provide information on climatefluctuations further back in time",
"they reveal information about the humanimpact on the climate"
] | According to paragraph 2, an advantage ofproxy records over instrumental records is that | One of the most difficult aspects of deciding whether current climatic events reveal evidence of the impact of human activities is that it is hard to get a measure of what constitutes the natural variability of the climate. We know that over the past millennia the climate has undergone major changes without any significant human intervention. We also know that the global climate system is immensely complicated and that everything is in some way connected, and so the system is capable of fluctuating in unexpected ways. We need therefore to know how much the climate can vary of its own accord in order to interpret with confidence the extent to which recent changes are natural as opposed to being the result of human activities.
Instrumental records do not go back far enough to provide us with reliable measurements of global climatic variability on timescales longer than a century. What we do know is that as we include longer time intervals, the record shows increasing evidence of slow swings in climate between different regimes. To build up a better picture of fluctuations appreciably further back in time requires us to use proxy records.
Over long periods of time, substances whose physical and chemical properties change with the ambient climate at the time can be deposited in a systematic way to provide a continuous record of changes in those properties overtime, sometimes for hundreds or thousands of years. Generally, the layering occurs on an annual basis, hence the observed changes in the records can be dated. Information on temperature, rainfall, and other aspects of the climate that can be inferred from the systematic changes in properties is usually referred to as proxy data. Proxy temperature records have been reconstructed from ice core drilled out of the central Greenland ice cap, calcite shells embedded in layered lake sediments in Western Europe, ocean floor sediment cores from the tropical Atlantic Ocean, ice cores from Peruvian glaciers, and ice cores from eastern Antarctica. While these records provide broadly consistent indications that temperature variations can occur on a global scale, there are nonetheless some intriguing differences, which suggest that the pattern of temperature variations in regional climates can also differ significantly from each other.
What the proxy records make abundantly clear is that there have been significant natural changes in the climate over timescales longer than a few thousand years. Equally striking, however, is the relative stability of the climate in the past 10,000 years (the Holocene perioD.
To the extent that the coverage of the global climate from these records can provide a measure of its true variability, it should at least indicate how all the natural causes of climate change have combined. These include the chaotic fluctuations of the atmosphere, the slower but equally erratic behavior of the oceans, changes in the land surfaces, and the extent of ice and snow. Also included will be any variations that have arisen from volcanic activity, solar activity, and, possibly, human activities.
One way to estimate how all the various processes leading to climate variability will combine is by using computer models of the global climate. They can do only so much to represent the full complexity of the global climate and hence may give only limited information about natural variability. Studies suggest that to date the variability in computer simulations is considerably smaller than in data obtained from the proxy records.
In addition to the internal variability of the global climate system itself, there is the added factor of external influences, such as volcanoes and solar activity. There is a growing body of opinion that both these physical variations have a measurable impact on the climate. Thus we need to be able to include these in our deliberations. Some current analyses conclude that volcanoes and solar activity explain quite a considerable amount of the observed variability in the period from the seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries, but that they cannot be invoked to explain the rapid warming in recent decades. | 950.txt | 2 |
[
"studying regional differences intemperature variations",
"studying and dating changes in theproperties of substances",
"observing changes in present day climateconditions",
"inferring past climate shifts fromobservations of current climatic changes"
] | According to paragraph 3, scientists areable to reconstruct proxy temperature records by | One of the most difficult aspects of deciding whether current climatic events reveal evidence of the impact of human activities is that it is hard to get a measure of what constitutes the natural variability of the climate. We know that over the past millennia the climate has undergone major changes without any significant human intervention. We also know that the global climate system is immensely complicated and that everything is in some way connected, and so the system is capable of fluctuating in unexpected ways. We need therefore to know how much the climate can vary of its own accord in order to interpret with confidence the extent to which recent changes are natural as opposed to being the result of human activities.
Instrumental records do not go back far enough to provide us with reliable measurements of global climatic variability on timescales longer than a century. What we do know is that as we include longer time intervals, the record shows increasing evidence of slow swings in climate between different regimes. To build up a better picture of fluctuations appreciably further back in time requires us to use proxy records.
Over long periods of time, substances whose physical and chemical properties change with the ambient climate at the time can be deposited in a systematic way to provide a continuous record of changes in those properties overtime, sometimes for hundreds or thousands of years. Generally, the layering occurs on an annual basis, hence the observed changes in the records can be dated. Information on temperature, rainfall, and other aspects of the climate that can be inferred from the systematic changes in properties is usually referred to as proxy data. Proxy temperature records have been reconstructed from ice core drilled out of the central Greenland ice cap, calcite shells embedded in layered lake sediments in Western Europe, ocean floor sediment cores from the tropical Atlantic Ocean, ice cores from Peruvian glaciers, and ice cores from eastern Antarctica. While these records provide broadly consistent indications that temperature variations can occur on a global scale, there are nonetheless some intriguing differences, which suggest that the pattern of temperature variations in regional climates can also differ significantly from each other.
What the proxy records make abundantly clear is that there have been significant natural changes in the climate over timescales longer than a few thousand years. Equally striking, however, is the relative stability of the climate in the past 10,000 years (the Holocene perioD.
To the extent that the coverage of the global climate from these records can provide a measure of its true variability, it should at least indicate how all the natural causes of climate change have combined. These include the chaotic fluctuations of the atmosphere, the slower but equally erratic behavior of the oceans, changes in the land surfaces, and the extent of ice and snow. Also included will be any variations that have arisen from volcanic activity, solar activity, and, possibly, human activities.
One way to estimate how all the various processes leading to climate variability will combine is by using computer models of the global climate. They can do only so much to represent the full complexity of the global climate and hence may give only limited information about natural variability. Studies suggest that to date the variability in computer simulations is considerably smaller than in data obtained from the proxy records.
In addition to the internal variability of the global climate system itself, there is the added factor of external influences, such as volcanoes and solar activity. There is a growing body of opinion that both these physical variations have a measurable impact on the climate. Thus we need to be able to include these in our deliberations. Some current analyses conclude that volcanoes and solar activity explain quite a considerable amount of the observed variability in the period from the seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries, but that they cannot be invoked to explain the rapid warming in recent decades. | 950.txt | 1 |
[
"noticeable",
"confusing",
"true",
"unlikely"
] | The word "striking" in thepassage(Paragraph 4)is closest in meaning to | One of the most difficult aspects of deciding whether current climatic events reveal evidence of the impact of human activities is that it is hard to get a measure of what constitutes the natural variability of the climate. We know that over the past millennia the climate has undergone major changes without any significant human intervention. We also know that the global climate system is immensely complicated and that everything is in some way connected, and so the system is capable of fluctuating in unexpected ways. We need therefore to know how much the climate can vary of its own accord in order to interpret with confidence the extent to which recent changes are natural as opposed to being the result of human activities.
Instrumental records do not go back far enough to provide us with reliable measurements of global climatic variability on timescales longer than a century. What we do know is that as we include longer time intervals, the record shows increasing evidence of slow swings in climate between different regimes. To build up a better picture of fluctuations appreciably further back in time requires us to use proxy records.
Over long periods of time, substances whose physical and chemical properties change with the ambient climate at the time can be deposited in a systematic way to provide a continuous record of changes in those properties overtime, sometimes for hundreds or thousands of years. Generally, the layering occurs on an annual basis, hence the observed changes in the records can be dated. Information on temperature, rainfall, and other aspects of the climate that can be inferred from the systematic changes in properties is usually referred to as proxy data. Proxy temperature records have been reconstructed from ice core drilled out of the central Greenland ice cap, calcite shells embedded in layered lake sediments in Western Europe, ocean floor sediment cores from the tropical Atlantic Ocean, ice cores from Peruvian glaciers, and ice cores from eastern Antarctica. While these records provide broadly consistent indications that temperature variations can occur on a global scale, there are nonetheless some intriguing differences, which suggest that the pattern of temperature variations in regional climates can also differ significantly from each other.
What the proxy records make abundantly clear is that there have been significant natural changes in the climate over timescales longer than a few thousand years. Equally striking, however, is the relative stability of the climate in the past 10,000 years (the Holocene perioD.
To the extent that the coverage of the global climate from these records can provide a measure of its true variability, it should at least indicate how all the natural causes of climate change have combined. These include the chaotic fluctuations of the atmosphere, the slower but equally erratic behavior of the oceans, changes in the land surfaces, and the extent of ice and snow. Also included will be any variations that have arisen from volcanic activity, solar activity, and, possibly, human activities.
One way to estimate how all the various processes leading to climate variability will combine is by using computer models of the global climate. They can do only so much to represent the full complexity of the global climate and hence may give only limited information about natural variability. Studies suggest that to date the variability in computer simulations is considerably smaller than in data obtained from the proxy records.
In addition to the internal variability of the global climate system itself, there is the added factor of external influences, such as volcanoes and solar activity. There is a growing body of opinion that both these physical variations have a measurable impact on the climate. Thus we need to be able to include these in our deliberations. Some current analyses conclude that volcanoes and solar activity explain quite a considerable amount of the observed variability in the period from the seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries, but that they cannot be invoked to explain the rapid warming in recent decades. | 950.txt | 0 |
[
"Regional climates may change overtime.",
"The climate has changed very little inthe past 10,000 years.",
"Global temperatures vary more thanregional temperatures.",
"Important natural changes in climatehave occurred over large timescales."
] | Accordingto paragraphs 3 and 4, proxydata have suggested all of the following about theclimate EXCEPT: | One of the most difficult aspects of deciding whether current climatic events reveal evidence of the impact of human activities is that it is hard to get a measure of what constitutes the natural variability of the climate. We know that over the past millennia the climate has undergone major changes without any significant human intervention. We also know that the global climate system is immensely complicated and that everything is in some way connected, and so the system is capable of fluctuating in unexpected ways. We need therefore to know how much the climate can vary of its own accord in order to interpret with confidence the extent to which recent changes are natural as opposed to being the result of human activities.
Instrumental records do not go back far enough to provide us with reliable measurements of global climatic variability on timescales longer than a century. What we do know is that as we include longer time intervals, the record shows increasing evidence of slow swings in climate between different regimes. To build up a better picture of fluctuations appreciably further back in time requires us to use proxy records.
Over long periods of time, substances whose physical and chemical properties change with the ambient climate at the time can be deposited in a systematic way to provide a continuous record of changes in those properties overtime, sometimes for hundreds or thousands of years. Generally, the layering occurs on an annual basis, hence the observed changes in the records can be dated. Information on temperature, rainfall, and other aspects of the climate that can be inferred from the systematic changes in properties is usually referred to as proxy data. Proxy temperature records have been reconstructed from ice core drilled out of the central Greenland ice cap, calcite shells embedded in layered lake sediments in Western Europe, ocean floor sediment cores from the tropical Atlantic Ocean, ice cores from Peruvian glaciers, and ice cores from eastern Antarctica. While these records provide broadly consistent indications that temperature variations can occur on a global scale, there are nonetheless some intriguing differences, which suggest that the pattern of temperature variations in regional climates can also differ significantly from each other.
What the proxy records make abundantly clear is that there have been significant natural changes in the climate over timescales longer than a few thousand years. Equally striking, however, is the relative stability of the climate in the past 10,000 years (the Holocene perioD.
To the extent that the coverage of the global climate from these records can provide a measure of its true variability, it should at least indicate how all the natural causes of climate change have combined. These include the chaotic fluctuations of the atmosphere, the slower but equally erratic behavior of the oceans, changes in the land surfaces, and the extent of ice and snow. Also included will be any variations that have arisen from volcanic activity, solar activity, and, possibly, human activities.
One way to estimate how all the various processes leading to climate variability will combine is by using computer models of the global climate. They can do only so much to represent the full complexity of the global climate and hence may give only limited information about natural variability. Studies suggest that to date the variability in computer simulations is considerably smaller than in data obtained from the proxy records.
In addition to the internal variability of the global climate system itself, there is the added factor of external influences, such as volcanoes and solar activity. There is a growing body of opinion that both these physical variations have a measurable impact on the climate. Thus we need to be able to include these in our deliberations. Some current analyses conclude that volcanoes and solar activity explain quite a considerable amount of the observed variability in the period from the seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries, but that they cannot be invoked to explain the rapid warming in recent decades. | 950.txt | 2 |
[
"dramatic",
"important",
"unpredictable",
"common"
] | The word "erratic" in thepassage(Paragraph 5)is closest in meaning to | One of the most difficult aspects of deciding whether current climatic events reveal evidence of the impact of human activities is that it is hard to get a measure of what constitutes the natural variability of the climate. We know that over the past millennia the climate has undergone major changes without any significant human intervention. We also know that the global climate system is immensely complicated and that everything is in some way connected, and so the system is capable of fluctuating in unexpected ways. We need therefore to know how much the climate can vary of its own accord in order to interpret with confidence the extent to which recent changes are natural as opposed to being the result of human activities.
Instrumental records do not go back far enough to provide us with reliable measurements of global climatic variability on timescales longer than a century. What we do know is that as we include longer time intervals, the record shows increasing evidence of slow swings in climate between different regimes. To build up a better picture of fluctuations appreciably further back in time requires us to use proxy records.
Over long periods of time, substances whose physical and chemical properties change with the ambient climate at the time can be deposited in a systematic way to provide a continuous record of changes in those properties overtime, sometimes for hundreds or thousands of years. Generally, the layering occurs on an annual basis, hence the observed changes in the records can be dated. Information on temperature, rainfall, and other aspects of the climate that can be inferred from the systematic changes in properties is usually referred to as proxy data. Proxy temperature records have been reconstructed from ice core drilled out of the central Greenland ice cap, calcite shells embedded in layered lake sediments in Western Europe, ocean floor sediment cores from the tropical Atlantic Ocean, ice cores from Peruvian glaciers, and ice cores from eastern Antarctica. While these records provide broadly consistent indications that temperature variations can occur on a global scale, there are nonetheless some intriguing differences, which suggest that the pattern of temperature variations in regional climates can also differ significantly from each other.
What the proxy records make abundantly clear is that there have been significant natural changes in the climate over timescales longer than a few thousand years. Equally striking, however, is the relative stability of the climate in the past 10,000 years (the Holocene perioD.
To the extent that the coverage of the global climate from these records can provide a measure of its true variability, it should at least indicate how all the natural causes of climate change have combined. These include the chaotic fluctuations of the atmosphere, the slower but equally erratic behavior of the oceans, changes in the land surfaces, and the extent of ice and snow. Also included will be any variations that have arisen from volcanic activity, solar activity, and, possibly, human activities.
One way to estimate how all the various processes leading to climate variability will combine is by using computer models of the global climate. They can do only so much to represent the full complexity of the global climate and hence may give only limited information about natural variability. Studies suggest that to date the variability in computer simulations is considerably smaller than in data obtained from the proxy records.
In addition to the internal variability of the global climate system itself, there is the added factor of external influences, such as volcanoes and solar activity. There is a growing body of opinion that both these physical variations have a measurable impact on the climate. Thus we need to be able to include these in our deliberations. Some current analyses conclude that volcanoes and solar activity explain quite a considerable amount of the observed variability in the period from the seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries, but that they cannot be invoked to explain the rapid warming in recent decades. | 950.txt | 2 |
[
"atmospheric changes",
"the slow movement of landmasses",
"fluctuations in the amount of ice andsnow",
"changes in ocean activity"
] | All of the following are mentioned inparagraph 5 as natural causes of climate change EXCEPT | One of the most difficult aspects of deciding whether current climatic events reveal evidence of the impact of human activities is that it is hard to get a measure of what constitutes the natural variability of the climate. We know that over the past millennia the climate has undergone major changes without any significant human intervention. We also know that the global climate system is immensely complicated and that everything is in some way connected, and so the system is capable of fluctuating in unexpected ways. We need therefore to know how much the climate can vary of its own accord in order to interpret with confidence the extent to which recent changes are natural as opposed to being the result of human activities.
Instrumental records do not go back far enough to provide us with reliable measurements of global climatic variability on timescales longer than a century. What we do know is that as we include longer time intervals, the record shows increasing evidence of slow swings in climate between different regimes. To build up a better picture of fluctuations appreciably further back in time requires us to use proxy records.
Over long periods of time, substances whose physical and chemical properties change with the ambient climate at the time can be deposited in a systematic way to provide a continuous record of changes in those properties overtime, sometimes for hundreds or thousands of years. Generally, the layering occurs on an annual basis, hence the observed changes in the records can be dated. Information on temperature, rainfall, and other aspects of the climate that can be inferred from the systematic changes in properties is usually referred to as proxy data. Proxy temperature records have been reconstructed from ice core drilled out of the central Greenland ice cap, calcite shells embedded in layered lake sediments in Western Europe, ocean floor sediment cores from the tropical Atlantic Ocean, ice cores from Peruvian glaciers, and ice cores from eastern Antarctica. While these records provide broadly consistent indications that temperature variations can occur on a global scale, there are nonetheless some intriguing differences, which suggest that the pattern of temperature variations in regional climates can also differ significantly from each other.
What the proxy records make abundantly clear is that there have been significant natural changes in the climate over timescales longer than a few thousand years. Equally striking, however, is the relative stability of the climate in the past 10,000 years (the Holocene perioD.
To the extent that the coverage of the global climate from these records can provide a measure of its true variability, it should at least indicate how all the natural causes of climate change have combined. These include the chaotic fluctuations of the atmosphere, the slower but equally erratic behavior of the oceans, changes in the land surfaces, and the extent of ice and snow. Also included will be any variations that have arisen from volcanic activity, solar activity, and, possibly, human activities.
One way to estimate how all the various processes leading to climate variability will combine is by using computer models of the global climate. They can do only so much to represent the full complexity of the global climate and hence may give only limited information about natural variability. Studies suggest that to date the variability in computer simulations is considerably smaller than in data obtained from the proxy records.
In addition to the internal variability of the global climate system itself, there is the added factor of external influences, such as volcanoes and solar activity. There is a growing body of opinion that both these physical variations have a measurable impact on the climate. Thus we need to be able to include these in our deliberations. Some current analyses conclude that volcanoes and solar activity explain quite a considerable amount of the observed variability in the period from the seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries, but that they cannot be invoked to explain the rapid warming in recent decades. | 950.txt | 1 |
[
"The information they produce is stilllimited.",
"They are currently most useful inunderstanding past climatic behaviors.",
"They allow researchers to interpret thedata obtained from proxy records.",
"They do not provide information aboutregional climates."
] | According to paragraph 6, which of the following is true of computer models of the global climate? | One of the most difficult aspects of deciding whether current climatic events reveal evidence of the impact of human activities is that it is hard to get a measure of what constitutes the natural variability of the climate. We know that over the past millennia the climate has undergone major changes without any significant human intervention. We also know that the global climate system is immensely complicated and that everything is in some way connected, and so the system is capable of fluctuating in unexpected ways. We need therefore to know how much the climate can vary of its own accord in order to interpret with confidence the extent to which recent changes are natural as opposed to being the result of human activities.
Instrumental records do not go back far enough to provide us with reliable measurements of global climatic variability on timescales longer than a century. What we do know is that as we include longer time intervals, the record shows increasing evidence of slow swings in climate between different regimes. To build up a better picture of fluctuations appreciably further back in time requires us to use proxy records.
Over long periods of time, substances whose physical and chemical properties change with the ambient climate at the time can be deposited in a systematic way to provide a continuous record of changes in those properties overtime, sometimes for hundreds or thousands of years. Generally, the layering occurs on an annual basis, hence the observed changes in the records can be dated. Information on temperature, rainfall, and other aspects of the climate that can be inferred from the systematic changes in properties is usually referred to as proxy data. Proxy temperature records have been reconstructed from ice core drilled out of the central Greenland ice cap, calcite shells embedded in layered lake sediments in Western Europe, ocean floor sediment cores from the tropical Atlantic Ocean, ice cores from Peruvian glaciers, and ice cores from eastern Antarctica. While these records provide broadly consistent indications that temperature variations can occur on a global scale, there are nonetheless some intriguing differences, which suggest that the pattern of temperature variations in regional climates can also differ significantly from each other.
What the proxy records make abundantly clear is that there have been significant natural changes in the climate over timescales longer than a few thousand years. Equally striking, however, is the relative stability of the climate in the past 10,000 years (the Holocene perioD.
To the extent that the coverage of the global climate from these records can provide a measure of its true variability, it should at least indicate how all the natural causes of climate change have combined. These include the chaotic fluctuations of the atmosphere, the slower but equally erratic behavior of the oceans, changes in the land surfaces, and the extent of ice and snow. Also included will be any variations that have arisen from volcanic activity, solar activity, and, possibly, human activities.
One way to estimate how all the various processes leading to climate variability will combine is by using computer models of the global climate. They can do only so much to represent the full complexity of the global climate and hence may give only limited information about natural variability. Studies suggest that to date the variability in computer simulations is considerably smaller than in data obtained from the proxy records.
In addition to the internal variability of the global climate system itself, there is the added factor of external influences, such as volcanoes and solar activity. There is a growing body of opinion that both these physical variations have a measurable impact on the climate. Thus we need to be able to include these in our deliberations. Some current analyses conclude that volcanoes and solar activity explain quite a considerable amount of the observed variability in the period from the seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries, but that they cannot be invoked to explain the rapid warming in recent decades. | 950.txt | 0 |
[
"records",
"discussions",
"results",
"variations"
] | The word "deliberations"(Paragraph 7)inthe passage is closest in meaning to | One of the most difficult aspects of deciding whether current climatic events reveal evidence of the impact of human activities is that it is hard to get a measure of what constitutes the natural variability of the climate. We know that over the past millennia the climate has undergone major changes without any significant human intervention. We also know that the global climate system is immensely complicated and that everything is in some way connected, and so the system is capable of fluctuating in unexpected ways. We need therefore to know how much the climate can vary of its own accord in order to interpret with confidence the extent to which recent changes are natural as opposed to being the result of human activities.
Instrumental records do not go back far enough to provide us with reliable measurements of global climatic variability on timescales longer than a century. What we do know is that as we include longer time intervals, the record shows increasing evidence of slow swings in climate between different regimes. To build up a better picture of fluctuations appreciably further back in time requires us to use proxy records.
Over long periods of time, substances whose physical and chemical properties change with the ambient climate at the time can be deposited in a systematic way to provide a continuous record of changes in those properties overtime, sometimes for hundreds or thousands of years. Generally, the layering occurs on an annual basis, hence the observed changes in the records can be dated. Information on temperature, rainfall, and other aspects of the climate that can be inferred from the systematic changes in properties is usually referred to as proxy data. Proxy temperature records have been reconstructed from ice core drilled out of the central Greenland ice cap, calcite shells embedded in layered lake sediments in Western Europe, ocean floor sediment cores from the tropical Atlantic Ocean, ice cores from Peruvian glaciers, and ice cores from eastern Antarctica. While these records provide broadly consistent indications that temperature variations can occur on a global scale, there are nonetheless some intriguing differences, which suggest that the pattern of temperature variations in regional climates can also differ significantly from each other.
What the proxy records make abundantly clear is that there have been significant natural changes in the climate over timescales longer than a few thousand years. Equally striking, however, is the relative stability of the climate in the past 10,000 years (the Holocene perioD.
To the extent that the coverage of the global climate from these records can provide a measure of its true variability, it should at least indicate how all the natural causes of climate change have combined. These include the chaotic fluctuations of the atmosphere, the slower but equally erratic behavior of the oceans, changes in the land surfaces, and the extent of ice and snow. Also included will be any variations that have arisen from volcanic activity, solar activity, and, possibly, human activities.
One way to estimate how all the various processes leading to climate variability will combine is by using computer models of the global climate. They can do only so much to represent the full complexity of the global climate and hence may give only limited information about natural variability. Studies suggest that to date the variability in computer simulations is considerably smaller than in data obtained from the proxy records.
In addition to the internal variability of the global climate system itself, there is the added factor of external influences, such as volcanoes and solar activity. There is a growing body of opinion that both these physical variations have a measurable impact on the climate. Thus we need to be able to include these in our deliberations. Some current analyses conclude that volcanoes and solar activity explain quite a considerable amount of the observed variability in the period from the seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries, but that they cannot be invoked to explain the rapid warming in recent decades. | 950.txt | 1 |
[
"demonstrated",
"called upon",
"supported",
"expected"
] | The word "invoked"(Paragraph 7)in thepassage is closest in meaning to | One of the most difficult aspects of deciding whether current climatic events reveal evidence of the impact of human activities is that it is hard to get a measure of what constitutes the natural variability of the climate. We know that over the past millennia the climate has undergone major changes without any significant human intervention. We also know that the global climate system is immensely complicated and that everything is in some way connected, and so the system is capable of fluctuating in unexpected ways. We need therefore to know how much the climate can vary of its own accord in order to interpret with confidence the extent to which recent changes are natural as opposed to being the result of human activities.
Instrumental records do not go back far enough to provide us with reliable measurements of global climatic variability on timescales longer than a century. What we do know is that as we include longer time intervals, the record shows increasing evidence of slow swings in climate between different regimes. To build up a better picture of fluctuations appreciably further back in time requires us to use proxy records.
Over long periods of time, substances whose physical and chemical properties change with the ambient climate at the time can be deposited in a systematic way to provide a continuous record of changes in those properties overtime, sometimes for hundreds or thousands of years. Generally, the layering occurs on an annual basis, hence the observed changes in the records can be dated. Information on temperature, rainfall, and other aspects of the climate that can be inferred from the systematic changes in properties is usually referred to as proxy data. Proxy temperature records have been reconstructed from ice core drilled out of the central Greenland ice cap, calcite shells embedded in layered lake sediments in Western Europe, ocean floor sediment cores from the tropical Atlantic Ocean, ice cores from Peruvian glaciers, and ice cores from eastern Antarctica. While these records provide broadly consistent indications that temperature variations can occur on a global scale, there are nonetheless some intriguing differences, which suggest that the pattern of temperature variations in regional climates can also differ significantly from each other.
What the proxy records make abundantly clear is that there have been significant natural changes in the climate over timescales longer than a few thousand years. Equally striking, however, is the relative stability of the climate in the past 10,000 years (the Holocene perioD.
To the extent that the coverage of the global climate from these records can provide a measure of its true variability, it should at least indicate how all the natural causes of climate change have combined. These include the chaotic fluctuations of the atmosphere, the slower but equally erratic behavior of the oceans, changes in the land surfaces, and the extent of ice and snow. Also included will be any variations that have arisen from volcanic activity, solar activity, and, possibly, human activities.
One way to estimate how all the various processes leading to climate variability will combine is by using computer models of the global climate. They can do only so much to represent the full complexity of the global climate and hence may give only limited information about natural variability. Studies suggest that to date the variability in computer simulations is considerably smaller than in data obtained from the proxy records.
In addition to the internal variability of the global climate system itself, there is the added factor of external influences, such as volcanoes and solar activity. There is a growing body of opinion that both these physical variations have a measurable impact on the climate. Thus we need to be able to include these in our deliberations. Some current analyses conclude that volcanoes and solar activity explain quite a considerable amount of the observed variability in the period from the seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries, but that they cannot be invoked to explain the rapid warming in recent decades. | 950.txt | 1 |
[
"To compare the influence of volcanoesand solar activity on climate variability with the influence of factorsexternal to the global climate system",
"To indicate that there are other types ofinfluences on climate variability in addition to those previously discussed",
"To explain how external influences onclimate variability differ from internal influences",
"To argue that the rapid warming of Earthin recent decades cannot be explained"
] | What is the author's purpose inpresenting the information in paragraph 7? | One of the most difficult aspects of deciding whether current climatic events reveal evidence of the impact of human activities is that it is hard to get a measure of what constitutes the natural variability of the climate. We know that over the past millennia the climate has undergone major changes without any significant human intervention. We also know that the global climate system is immensely complicated and that everything is in some way connected, and so the system is capable of fluctuating in unexpected ways. We need therefore to know how much the climate can vary of its own accord in order to interpret with confidence the extent to which recent changes are natural as opposed to being the result of human activities.
Instrumental records do not go back far enough to provide us with reliable measurements of global climatic variability on timescales longer than a century. What we do know is that as we include longer time intervals, the record shows increasing evidence of slow swings in climate between different regimes. To build up a better picture of fluctuations appreciably further back in time requires us to use proxy records.
Over long periods of time, substances whose physical and chemical properties change with the ambient climate at the time can be deposited in a systematic way to provide a continuous record of changes in those properties overtime, sometimes for hundreds or thousands of years. Generally, the layering occurs on an annual basis, hence the observed changes in the records can be dated. Information on temperature, rainfall, and other aspects of the climate that can be inferred from the systematic changes in properties is usually referred to as proxy data. Proxy temperature records have been reconstructed from ice core drilled out of the central Greenland ice cap, calcite shells embedded in layered lake sediments in Western Europe, ocean floor sediment cores from the tropical Atlantic Ocean, ice cores from Peruvian glaciers, and ice cores from eastern Antarctica. While these records provide broadly consistent indications that temperature variations can occur on a global scale, there are nonetheless some intriguing differences, which suggest that the pattern of temperature variations in regional climates can also differ significantly from each other.
What the proxy records make abundantly clear is that there have been significant natural changes in the climate over timescales longer than a few thousand years. Equally striking, however, is the relative stability of the climate in the past 10,000 years (the Holocene perioD.
To the extent that the coverage of the global climate from these records can provide a measure of its true variability, it should at least indicate how all the natural causes of climate change have combined. These include the chaotic fluctuations of the atmosphere, the slower but equally erratic behavior of the oceans, changes in the land surfaces, and the extent of ice and snow. Also included will be any variations that have arisen from volcanic activity, solar activity, and, possibly, human activities.
One way to estimate how all the various processes leading to climate variability will combine is by using computer models of the global climate. They can do only so much to represent the full complexity of the global climate and hence may give only limited information about natural variability. Studies suggest that to date the variability in computer simulations is considerably smaller than in data obtained from the proxy records.
In addition to the internal variability of the global climate system itself, there is the added factor of external influences, such as volcanoes and solar activity. There is a growing body of opinion that both these physical variations have a measurable impact on the climate. Thus we need to be able to include these in our deliberations. Some current analyses conclude that volcanoes and solar activity explain quite a considerable amount of the observed variability in the period from the seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries, but that they cannot be invoked to explain the rapid warming in recent decades. | 950.txt | 1 |
[
"withdraw as much money from the bank as he wishes",
"obtain more convenient services than other people do",
"enjoy greater trust from the storekeeper",
"cash money wherever he wishes to"
] | According to the passage, the credit card enables its owner to . | One hundred and thirteen million Americans have at least one bank-issued credit card. They give their owners automatic credit in stores, restaurants, and hotels, at home, across the country, and even abroad, and they make many banking services available as well. More and more of these credit cards can be read automatically, making it possible to withdraw or deposit money in scattered locations, whether or not the local branch bank is open. For many of us the "cashless society" is not on the horizon -- it's already here.
While computers offer these conveniences to consumers, they have many advantages for sellers too. Electronic cash registers can do much more than simply ring up sales. They can keep a wide range of records, including who sold what, when, and to whom. This information allows businessmen to keep track of their list of goods by showing which items are being sold and how fast they are moving. Decisions to reorder or return goods to suppliers can then be made. At the same time these computers record which hours are busiest and which employees are the most efficient, allowing personnel and staffing assignments to be made accordingly. And they also identify preferred customers for promotional campaigns. Computers are relied on by manufacturers for similar reasons. Computer-analyzed marketing reports can help to decide which products to emphasize now, which to develop for the future, and which to drop. Computers keep track of goods in stock, of raw materials on hand, and even of the production process itself.
Numerous other commercial enterprises, from theaters to magazine publishers, from gas and electric utilities to milk processors, bring better and more efficient services to consumers through the use of computers. | 1407.txt | 1 |
[
"in the future all the Americans will use credit cards",
"credit cards are mainly used in the United States today",
"nowadays many Americans do not pay in cash",
"it is now more convenient to use credit cards than before"
] | From the last sentence of the first paragraph we learn that . | One hundred and thirteen million Americans have at least one bank-issued credit card. They give their owners automatic credit in stores, restaurants, and hotels, at home, across the country, and even abroad, and they make many banking services available as well. More and more of these credit cards can be read automatically, making it possible to withdraw or deposit money in scattered locations, whether or not the local branch bank is open. For many of us the "cashless society" is not on the horizon -- it's already here.
While computers offer these conveniences to consumers, they have many advantages for sellers too. Electronic cash registers can do much more than simply ring up sales. They can keep a wide range of records, including who sold what, when, and to whom. This information allows businessmen to keep track of their list of goods by showing which items are being sold and how fast they are moving. Decisions to reorder or return goods to suppliers can then be made. At the same time these computers record which hours are busiest and which employees are the most efficient, allowing personnel and staffing assignments to be made accordingly. And they also identify preferred customers for promotional campaigns. Computers are relied on by manufacturers for similar reasons. Computer-analyzed marketing reports can help to decide which products to emphasize now, which to develop for the future, and which to drop. Computers keep track of goods in stock, of raw materials on hand, and even of the production process itself.
Numerous other commercial enterprises, from theaters to magazine publishers, from gas and electric utilities to milk processors, bring better and more efficient services to consumers through the use of computers. | 1407.txt | 2 |
[
"make an order of goods",
"record sales on a cash register",
"call the sales manager",
"keep track of the goods in stock"
] | The phrase "ring up sales" (Line 3, Para. 2) most probably means " ". | One hundred and thirteen million Americans have at least one bank-issued credit card. They give their owners automatic credit in stores, restaurants, and hotels, at home, across the country, and even abroad, and they make many banking services available as well. More and more of these credit cards can be read automatically, making it possible to withdraw or deposit money in scattered locations, whether or not the local branch bank is open. For many of us the "cashless society" is not on the horizon -- it's already here.
While computers offer these conveniences to consumers, they have many advantages for sellers too. Electronic cash registers can do much more than simply ring up sales. They can keep a wide range of records, including who sold what, when, and to whom. This information allows businessmen to keep track of their list of goods by showing which items are being sold and how fast they are moving. Decisions to reorder or return goods to suppliers can then be made. At the same time these computers record which hours are busiest and which employees are the most efficient, allowing personnel and staffing assignments to be made accordingly. And they also identify preferred customers for promotional campaigns. Computers are relied on by manufacturers for similar reasons. Computer-analyzed marketing reports can help to decide which products to emphasize now, which to develop for the future, and which to drop. Computers keep track of goods in stock, of raw materials on hand, and even of the production process itself.
Numerous other commercial enterprises, from theaters to magazine publishers, from gas and electric utilities to milk processors, bring better and more efficient services to consumers through the use of computers. | 1407.txt | 1 |
[
"Approaches to the commercial use of computers.",
"Conveniences brought about by computers in business.",
"Significance of automation in commercial enterprises.",
"Advantages of credit cards in business."
] | What is this passage mainly about? | One hundred and thirteen million Americans have at least one bank-issued credit card. They give their owners automatic credit in stores, restaurants, and hotels, at home, across the country, and even abroad, and they make many banking services available as well. More and more of these credit cards can be read automatically, making it possible to withdraw or deposit money in scattered locations, whether or not the local branch bank is open. For many of us the "cashless society" is not on the horizon -- it's already here.
While computers offer these conveniences to consumers, they have many advantages for sellers too. Electronic cash registers can do much more than simply ring up sales. They can keep a wide range of records, including who sold what, when, and to whom. This information allows businessmen to keep track of their list of goods by showing which items are being sold and how fast they are moving. Decisions to reorder or return goods to suppliers can then be made. At the same time these computers record which hours are busiest and which employees are the most efficient, allowing personnel and staffing assignments to be made accordingly. And they also identify preferred customers for promotional campaigns. Computers are relied on by manufacturers for similar reasons. Computer-analyzed marketing reports can help to decide which products to emphasize now, which to develop for the future, and which to drop. Computers keep track of goods in stock, of raw materials on hand, and even of the production process itself.
Numerous other commercial enterprises, from theaters to magazine publishers, from gas and electric utilities to milk processors, bring better and more efficient services to consumers through the use of computers. | 1407.txt | 1 |
[
"Claim",
"Model",
"Assume",
"Present"
] | The word pose in the passage is closest in the meaning to | There is increasing evidence that the impacts of meteorites have had important effects on Earth, particularly in the field of biological evolution. Such impacts continue to pose a natural hazard to life on Earth. Twice in the twentieth century, large meteorite objects are known to have collided with Earth.
If an impact is large enough, it can disturb the environment of the entire Earth and cause an ecological catastrophe. The best-documented such impact took place 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period of geological history. This break in Earth's history is marked by a mass extinction, when as many as half the species on the planet became extinct. While there are a dozen or more mass extinctions in the geological record, the Cretaceous mass extinction has always intrigued paleontologists because it marks the end of the age of the dinosaurs. For tens of millions of years, those great creatures had flourished. Then, suddenly, they disappeared.
The body that impacted Earth at the end of the Cretaceous period was a meteorite with a mass of more than a trillion tons and a diameter of at least 10 kilometers. Scientists first identified this impact in 1980 from the worldwide layer of sediment deposited from the dust cloud that enveloped the planet after the impact. This sediment layer is enriched in the rare metal iridium and other elements that are relatively abundant in a meteorite but very rare in the crust of Earth. Even diluted by the terrestrial material excavated from the crater, this component of meteorites is easily identified. By 1990 geologists had located the impact site itself in the Yucat region of Mexico. The crater, now deeply buried in sediment, was originally about 200 kilometers in diameter.
This impact released an enormous amount of energy, excavating a crater about twice as large as the lunar crater Tycho. The explosion lifted about 100 trillion tons of dust into the atmosphere, as can be determined by measuring the thickness of the sediment layer formed when this dust settled to the surface. Such a quantity of material would have blocked the sunlight completely from reaching the surface, plunging Earth into a period of cold and darkness that lasted at least several months. The explosion is also calculated to have produced vast quantities of nitric acid and melted rock that sprayed out over much of Earth, starting widespread fires that must have consumed most terrestrial forests and grassland. Presumably, those environmental disasters could have been responsible for the mass extinction, including the death of the dinosaurs.
Several other mass extinctions in the geological record have been tentatively identified with large impacts, but none is so dramatic as the Cretaceous event. But even without such specific documentation, it is clear that impacts of this size do occur and that their results can be catastrophic. What is a catastrophe for one group of living things, however, may create opportunities for another group. Following each mass extinction, there is a sudden evolutionary burst as new species develop to fill the ecological niches opened by the event.
Impacts by meteorites represent one mechanism that could cause global catastrophes and seriously influence the evolution of life all over the planet. According to some estimates, the majority of all extinctions of species may be due to such impacts. Such a perspective fundamentally changes our view of biological evolution. The standard criterion for the survival of a species is its success in competing with other species and adapting to slowly changing environments. Yet an equally important criterion is the ability of a species to survive random global ecological catastrophes due to impacts.
Earth is a target in a cosmic shooting gallery, subject to random violent events that were unsuspected a few decades ago. In 1991 the United States Congress asked NASA to investigate the hazard posed today by large impacts on Earth. The group conducting the study concluded from a detailed analysis that impacts from meteorites can indeed be hazardous. Although there is always some risk that a large impact could occur, careful study shows that this risk is quite small. | 1586.txt | 3 |
[
"To support the claim that the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous is the best-documented of the dozen or so mass extinctions in the geological record",
"To explain why as many as half of the species on Earth at the time are believed to have become extinct at the end of the Cretaceous",
"To explain why paleontologists have always been intrigued by the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous",
"To provide evidence that an impact can be large enough to disturb the environment of the entire planet and cause an ecological disaster"
] | In paragraph 2, why does the author include the information that dinosaurs had flourished for tens of millions of years and then suddenly disappeared? | There is increasing evidence that the impacts of meteorites have had important effects on Earth, particularly in the field of biological evolution. Such impacts continue to pose a natural hazard to life on Earth. Twice in the twentieth century, large meteorite objects are known to have collided with Earth.
If an impact is large enough, it can disturb the environment of the entire Earth and cause an ecological catastrophe. The best-documented such impact took place 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period of geological history. This break in Earth's history is marked by a mass extinction, when as many as half the species on the planet became extinct. While there are a dozen or more mass extinctions in the geological record, the Cretaceous mass extinction has always intrigued paleontologists because it marks the end of the age of the dinosaurs. For tens of millions of years, those great creatures had flourished. Then, suddenly, they disappeared.
The body that impacted Earth at the end of the Cretaceous period was a meteorite with a mass of more than a trillion tons and a diameter of at least 10 kilometers. Scientists first identified this impact in 1980 from the worldwide layer of sediment deposited from the dust cloud that enveloped the planet after the impact. This sediment layer is enriched in the rare metal iridium and other elements that are relatively abundant in a meteorite but very rare in the crust of Earth. Even diluted by the terrestrial material excavated from the crater, this component of meteorites is easily identified. By 1990 geologists had located the impact site itself in the Yucat region of Mexico. The crater, now deeply buried in sediment, was originally about 200 kilometers in diameter.
This impact released an enormous amount of energy, excavating a crater about twice as large as the lunar crater Tycho. The explosion lifted about 100 trillion tons of dust into the atmosphere, as can be determined by measuring the thickness of the sediment layer formed when this dust settled to the surface. Such a quantity of material would have blocked the sunlight completely from reaching the surface, plunging Earth into a period of cold and darkness that lasted at least several months. The explosion is also calculated to have produced vast quantities of nitric acid and melted rock that sprayed out over much of Earth, starting widespread fires that must have consumed most terrestrial forests and grassland. Presumably, those environmental disasters could have been responsible for the mass extinction, including the death of the dinosaurs.
Several other mass extinctions in the geological record have been tentatively identified with large impacts, but none is so dramatic as the Cretaceous event. But even without such specific documentation, it is clear that impacts of this size do occur and that their results can be catastrophic. What is a catastrophe for one group of living things, however, may create opportunities for another group. Following each mass extinction, there is a sudden evolutionary burst as new species develop to fill the ecological niches opened by the event.
Impacts by meteorites represent one mechanism that could cause global catastrophes and seriously influence the evolution of life all over the planet. According to some estimates, the majority of all extinctions of species may be due to such impacts. Such a perspective fundamentally changes our view of biological evolution. The standard criterion for the survival of a species is its success in competing with other species and adapting to slowly changing environments. Yet an equally important criterion is the ability of a species to survive random global ecological catastrophes due to impacts.
Earth is a target in a cosmic shooting gallery, subject to random violent events that were unsuspected a few decades ago. In 1991 the United States Congress asked NASA to investigate the hazard posed today by large impacts on Earth. The group conducting the study concluded from a detailed analysis that impacts from meteorites can indeed be hazardous. Although there is always some risk that a large impact could occur, careful study shows that this risk is quite small. | 1586.txt | 2 |
[
"The location of the impact site in Mexico was kept secret by geologists from 1980 to 1990.",
"It was a well-known fact that the impact had occurred in the Yucat region.",
"Geologists knew that there had been an impact before they knew where it had occurred.",
"The Yucat region was chosen by geologists as the most probable impact site because of its climate."
] | Which of the following can be inferred from paragraph 3 about the location of the meteorite impact in Mexico? | There is increasing evidence that the impacts of meteorites have had important effects on Earth, particularly in the field of biological evolution. Such impacts continue to pose a natural hazard to life on Earth. Twice in the twentieth century, large meteorite objects are known to have collided with Earth.
If an impact is large enough, it can disturb the environment of the entire Earth and cause an ecological catastrophe. The best-documented such impact took place 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period of geological history. This break in Earth's history is marked by a mass extinction, when as many as half the species on the planet became extinct. While there are a dozen or more mass extinctions in the geological record, the Cretaceous mass extinction has always intrigued paleontologists because it marks the end of the age of the dinosaurs. For tens of millions of years, those great creatures had flourished. Then, suddenly, they disappeared.
The body that impacted Earth at the end of the Cretaceous period was a meteorite with a mass of more than a trillion tons and a diameter of at least 10 kilometers. Scientists first identified this impact in 1980 from the worldwide layer of sediment deposited from the dust cloud that enveloped the planet after the impact. This sediment layer is enriched in the rare metal iridium and other elements that are relatively abundant in a meteorite but very rare in the crust of Earth. Even diluted by the terrestrial material excavated from the crater, this component of meteorites is easily identified. By 1990 geologists had located the impact site itself in the Yucat region of Mexico. The crater, now deeply buried in sediment, was originally about 200 kilometers in diameter.
This impact released an enormous amount of energy, excavating a crater about twice as large as the lunar crater Tycho. The explosion lifted about 100 trillion tons of dust into the atmosphere, as can be determined by measuring the thickness of the sediment layer formed when this dust settled to the surface. Such a quantity of material would have blocked the sunlight completely from reaching the surface, plunging Earth into a period of cold and darkness that lasted at least several months. The explosion is also calculated to have produced vast quantities of nitric acid and melted rock that sprayed out over much of Earth, starting widespread fires that must have consumed most terrestrial forests and grassland. Presumably, those environmental disasters could have been responsible for the mass extinction, including the death of the dinosaurs.
Several other mass extinctions in the geological record have been tentatively identified with large impacts, but none is so dramatic as the Cretaceous event. But even without such specific documentation, it is clear that impacts of this size do occur and that their results can be catastrophic. What is a catastrophe for one group of living things, however, may create opportunities for another group. Following each mass extinction, there is a sudden evolutionary burst as new species develop to fill the ecological niches opened by the event.
Impacts by meteorites represent one mechanism that could cause global catastrophes and seriously influence the evolution of life all over the planet. According to some estimates, the majority of all extinctions of species may be due to such impacts. Such a perspective fundamentally changes our view of biological evolution. The standard criterion for the survival of a species is its success in competing with other species and adapting to slowly changing environments. Yet an equally important criterion is the ability of a species to survive random global ecological catastrophes due to impacts.
Earth is a target in a cosmic shooting gallery, subject to random violent events that were unsuspected a few decades ago. In 1991 the United States Congress asked NASA to investigate the hazard posed today by large impacts on Earth. The group conducting the study concluded from a detailed analysis that impacts from meteorites can indeed be hazardous. Although there is always some risk that a large impact could occur, careful study shows that this risk is quite small. | 1586.txt | 2 |
[
"They discovered a large crater in the Yucat region of Mexico.",
"They found a unique layer of sediment worldwide.",
"They were alerted by archaeologists who had been excavating in the Yucat region.",
"They located a meteorite with a mass of over a trillion tons."
] | According to paragraph 3, how did scientists determine that a large meteorite had impacted Earth? | There is increasing evidence that the impacts of meteorites have had important effects on Earth, particularly in the field of biological evolution. Such impacts continue to pose a natural hazard to life on Earth. Twice in the twentieth century, large meteorite objects are known to have collided with Earth.
If an impact is large enough, it can disturb the environment of the entire Earth and cause an ecological catastrophe. The best-documented such impact took place 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period of geological history. This break in Earth's history is marked by a mass extinction, when as many as half the species on the planet became extinct. While there are a dozen or more mass extinctions in the geological record, the Cretaceous mass extinction has always intrigued paleontologists because it marks the end of the age of the dinosaurs. For tens of millions of years, those great creatures had flourished. Then, suddenly, they disappeared.
The body that impacted Earth at the end of the Cretaceous period was a meteorite with a mass of more than a trillion tons and a diameter of at least 10 kilometers. Scientists first identified this impact in 1980 from the worldwide layer of sediment deposited from the dust cloud that enveloped the planet after the impact. This sediment layer is enriched in the rare metal iridium and other elements that are relatively abundant in a meteorite but very rare in the crust of Earth. Even diluted by the terrestrial material excavated from the crater, this component of meteorites is easily identified. By 1990 geologists had located the impact site itself in the Yucat region of Mexico. The crater, now deeply buried in sediment, was originally about 200 kilometers in diameter.
This impact released an enormous amount of energy, excavating a crater about twice as large as the lunar crater Tycho. The explosion lifted about 100 trillion tons of dust into the atmosphere, as can be determined by measuring the thickness of the sediment layer formed when this dust settled to the surface. Such a quantity of material would have blocked the sunlight completely from reaching the surface, plunging Earth into a period of cold and darkness that lasted at least several months. The explosion is also calculated to have produced vast quantities of nitric acid and melted rock that sprayed out over much of Earth, starting widespread fires that must have consumed most terrestrial forests and grassland. Presumably, those environmental disasters could have been responsible for the mass extinction, including the death of the dinosaurs.
Several other mass extinctions in the geological record have been tentatively identified with large impacts, but none is so dramatic as the Cretaceous event. But even without such specific documentation, it is clear that impacts of this size do occur and that their results can be catastrophic. What is a catastrophe for one group of living things, however, may create opportunities for another group. Following each mass extinction, there is a sudden evolutionary burst as new species develop to fill the ecological niches opened by the event.
Impacts by meteorites represent one mechanism that could cause global catastrophes and seriously influence the evolution of life all over the planet. According to some estimates, the majority of all extinctions of species may be due to such impacts. Such a perspective fundamentally changes our view of biological evolution. The standard criterion for the survival of a species is its success in competing with other species and adapting to slowly changing environments. Yet an equally important criterion is the ability of a species to survive random global ecological catastrophes due to impacts.
Earth is a target in a cosmic shooting gallery, subject to random violent events that were unsuspected a few decades ago. In 1991 the United States Congress asked NASA to investigate the hazard posed today by large impacts on Earth. The group conducting the study concluded from a detailed analysis that impacts from meteorites can indeed be hazardous. Although there is always some risk that a large impact could occur, careful study shows that this risk is quite small. | 1586.txt | 1 |
[
"Digging out",
"Extending",
"Destroying",
"Covering up"
] | The word excavating in the passage is closest in the meaning to | There is increasing evidence that the impacts of meteorites have had important effects on Earth, particularly in the field of biological evolution. Such impacts continue to pose a natural hazard to life on Earth. Twice in the twentieth century, large meteorite objects are known to have collided with Earth.
If an impact is large enough, it can disturb the environment of the entire Earth and cause an ecological catastrophe. The best-documented such impact took place 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period of geological history. This break in Earth's history is marked by a mass extinction, when as many as half the species on the planet became extinct. While there are a dozen or more mass extinctions in the geological record, the Cretaceous mass extinction has always intrigued paleontologists because it marks the end of the age of the dinosaurs. For tens of millions of years, those great creatures had flourished. Then, suddenly, they disappeared.
The body that impacted Earth at the end of the Cretaceous period was a meteorite with a mass of more than a trillion tons and a diameter of at least 10 kilometers. Scientists first identified this impact in 1980 from the worldwide layer of sediment deposited from the dust cloud that enveloped the planet after the impact. This sediment layer is enriched in the rare metal iridium and other elements that are relatively abundant in a meteorite but very rare in the crust of Earth. Even diluted by the terrestrial material excavated from the crater, this component of meteorites is easily identified. By 1990 geologists had located the impact site itself in the Yucat region of Mexico. The crater, now deeply buried in sediment, was originally about 200 kilometers in diameter.
This impact released an enormous amount of energy, excavating a crater about twice as large as the lunar crater Tycho. The explosion lifted about 100 trillion tons of dust into the atmosphere, as can be determined by measuring the thickness of the sediment layer formed when this dust settled to the surface. Such a quantity of material would have blocked the sunlight completely from reaching the surface, plunging Earth into a period of cold and darkness that lasted at least several months. The explosion is also calculated to have produced vast quantities of nitric acid and melted rock that sprayed out over much of Earth, starting widespread fires that must have consumed most terrestrial forests and grassland. Presumably, those environmental disasters could have been responsible for the mass extinction, including the death of the dinosaurs.
Several other mass extinctions in the geological record have been tentatively identified with large impacts, but none is so dramatic as the Cretaceous event. But even without such specific documentation, it is clear that impacts of this size do occur and that their results can be catastrophic. What is a catastrophe for one group of living things, however, may create opportunities for another group. Following each mass extinction, there is a sudden evolutionary burst as new species develop to fill the ecological niches opened by the event.
Impacts by meteorites represent one mechanism that could cause global catastrophes and seriously influence the evolution of life all over the planet. According to some estimates, the majority of all extinctions of species may be due to such impacts. Such a perspective fundamentally changes our view of biological evolution. The standard criterion for the survival of a species is its success in competing with other species and adapting to slowly changing environments. Yet an equally important criterion is the ability of a species to survive random global ecological catastrophes due to impacts.
Earth is a target in a cosmic shooting gallery, subject to random violent events that were unsuspected a few decades ago. In 1991 the United States Congress asked NASA to investigate the hazard posed today by large impacts on Earth. The group conducting the study concluded from a detailed analysis that impacts from meteorites can indeed be hazardous. Although there is always some risk that a large impact could occur, careful study shows that this risk is quite small. | 1586.txt | 0 |
[
"Changed",
"Exposed",
"Destroyed",
"Covered"
] | The word consumed in the passage is closest in the meaning to | There is increasing evidence that the impacts of meteorites have had important effects on Earth, particularly in the field of biological evolution. Such impacts continue to pose a natural hazard to life on Earth. Twice in the twentieth century, large meteorite objects are known to have collided with Earth.
If an impact is large enough, it can disturb the environment of the entire Earth and cause an ecological catastrophe. The best-documented such impact took place 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period of geological history. This break in Earth's history is marked by a mass extinction, when as many as half the species on the planet became extinct. While there are a dozen or more mass extinctions in the geological record, the Cretaceous mass extinction has always intrigued paleontologists because it marks the end of the age of the dinosaurs. For tens of millions of years, those great creatures had flourished. Then, suddenly, they disappeared.
The body that impacted Earth at the end of the Cretaceous period was a meteorite with a mass of more than a trillion tons and a diameter of at least 10 kilometers. Scientists first identified this impact in 1980 from the worldwide layer of sediment deposited from the dust cloud that enveloped the planet after the impact. This sediment layer is enriched in the rare metal iridium and other elements that are relatively abundant in a meteorite but very rare in the crust of Earth. Even diluted by the terrestrial material excavated from the crater, this component of meteorites is easily identified. By 1990 geologists had located the impact site itself in the Yucat region of Mexico. The crater, now deeply buried in sediment, was originally about 200 kilometers in diameter.
This impact released an enormous amount of energy, excavating a crater about twice as large as the lunar crater Tycho. The explosion lifted about 100 trillion tons of dust into the atmosphere, as can be determined by measuring the thickness of the sediment layer formed when this dust settled to the surface. Such a quantity of material would have blocked the sunlight completely from reaching the surface, plunging Earth into a period of cold and darkness that lasted at least several months. The explosion is also calculated to have produced vast quantities of nitric acid and melted rock that sprayed out over much of Earth, starting widespread fires that must have consumed most terrestrial forests and grassland. Presumably, those environmental disasters could have been responsible for the mass extinction, including the death of the dinosaurs.
Several other mass extinctions in the geological record have been tentatively identified with large impacts, but none is so dramatic as the Cretaceous event. But even without such specific documentation, it is clear that impacts of this size do occur and that their results can be catastrophic. What is a catastrophe for one group of living things, however, may create opportunities for another group. Following each mass extinction, there is a sudden evolutionary burst as new species develop to fill the ecological niches opened by the event.
Impacts by meteorites represent one mechanism that could cause global catastrophes and seriously influence the evolution of life all over the planet. According to some estimates, the majority of all extinctions of species may be due to such impacts. Such a perspective fundamentally changes our view of biological evolution. The standard criterion for the survival of a species is its success in competing with other species and adapting to slowly changing environments. Yet an equally important criterion is the ability of a species to survive random global ecological catastrophes due to impacts.
Earth is a target in a cosmic shooting gallery, subject to random violent events that were unsuspected a few decades ago. In 1991 the United States Congress asked NASA to investigate the hazard posed today by large impacts on Earth. The group conducting the study concluded from a detailed analysis that impacts from meteorites can indeed be hazardous. Although there is always some risk that a large impact could occur, careful study shows that this risk is quite small. | 1586.txt | 2 |
[
"A large amount of dust blocked sunlight from Earth.",
"Earth became cold and dark for several months.",
"New elements were formed in Earth's crust.",
"Large quantities of nitric acid were produced."
] | According to paragraph 4, all of the following statements are true of the impact at the end of the Cretaceous period EXCEPT: | There is increasing evidence that the impacts of meteorites have had important effects on Earth, particularly in the field of biological evolution. Such impacts continue to pose a natural hazard to life on Earth. Twice in the twentieth century, large meteorite objects are known to have collided with Earth.
If an impact is large enough, it can disturb the environment of the entire Earth and cause an ecological catastrophe. The best-documented such impact took place 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period of geological history. This break in Earth's history is marked by a mass extinction, when as many as half the species on the planet became extinct. While there are a dozen or more mass extinctions in the geological record, the Cretaceous mass extinction has always intrigued paleontologists because it marks the end of the age of the dinosaurs. For tens of millions of years, those great creatures had flourished. Then, suddenly, they disappeared.
The body that impacted Earth at the end of the Cretaceous period was a meteorite with a mass of more than a trillion tons and a diameter of at least 10 kilometers. Scientists first identified this impact in 1980 from the worldwide layer of sediment deposited from the dust cloud that enveloped the planet after the impact. This sediment layer is enriched in the rare metal iridium and other elements that are relatively abundant in a meteorite but very rare in the crust of Earth. Even diluted by the terrestrial material excavated from the crater, this component of meteorites is easily identified. By 1990 geologists had located the impact site itself in the Yucat region of Mexico. The crater, now deeply buried in sediment, was originally about 200 kilometers in diameter.
This impact released an enormous amount of energy, excavating a crater about twice as large as the lunar crater Tycho. The explosion lifted about 100 trillion tons of dust into the atmosphere, as can be determined by measuring the thickness of the sediment layer formed when this dust settled to the surface. Such a quantity of material would have blocked the sunlight completely from reaching the surface, plunging Earth into a period of cold and darkness that lasted at least several months. The explosion is also calculated to have produced vast quantities of nitric acid and melted rock that sprayed out over much of Earth, starting widespread fires that must have consumed most terrestrial forests and grassland. Presumably, those environmental disasters could have been responsible for the mass extinction, including the death of the dinosaurs.
Several other mass extinctions in the geological record have been tentatively identified with large impacts, but none is so dramatic as the Cretaceous event. But even without such specific documentation, it is clear that impacts of this size do occur and that their results can be catastrophic. What is a catastrophe for one group of living things, however, may create opportunities for another group. Following each mass extinction, there is a sudden evolutionary burst as new species develop to fill the ecological niches opened by the event.
Impacts by meteorites represent one mechanism that could cause global catastrophes and seriously influence the evolution of life all over the planet. According to some estimates, the majority of all extinctions of species may be due to such impacts. Such a perspective fundamentally changes our view of biological evolution. The standard criterion for the survival of a species is its success in competing with other species and adapting to slowly changing environments. Yet an equally important criterion is the ability of a species to survive random global ecological catastrophes due to impacts.
Earth is a target in a cosmic shooting gallery, subject to random violent events that were unsuspected a few decades ago. In 1991 the United States Congress asked NASA to investigate the hazard posed today by large impacts on Earth. The group conducting the study concluded from a detailed analysis that impacts from meteorites can indeed be hazardous. Although there is always some risk that a large impact could occur, careful study shows that this risk is quite small. | 1586.txt | 2 |
[
"Identified after careful study",
"Identified without certainty",
"Occasionally identified",
"Easily identified"
] | The phrase tentatively identified in the passage is closest in the meaning to | There is increasing evidence that the impacts of meteorites have had important effects on Earth, particularly in the field of biological evolution. Such impacts continue to pose a natural hazard to life on Earth. Twice in the twentieth century, large meteorite objects are known to have collided with Earth.
If an impact is large enough, it can disturb the environment of the entire Earth and cause an ecological catastrophe. The best-documented such impact took place 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period of geological history. This break in Earth's history is marked by a mass extinction, when as many as half the species on the planet became extinct. While there are a dozen or more mass extinctions in the geological record, the Cretaceous mass extinction has always intrigued paleontologists because it marks the end of the age of the dinosaurs. For tens of millions of years, those great creatures had flourished. Then, suddenly, they disappeared.
The body that impacted Earth at the end of the Cretaceous period was a meteorite with a mass of more than a trillion tons and a diameter of at least 10 kilometers. Scientists first identified this impact in 1980 from the worldwide layer of sediment deposited from the dust cloud that enveloped the planet after the impact. This sediment layer is enriched in the rare metal iridium and other elements that are relatively abundant in a meteorite but very rare in the crust of Earth. Even diluted by the terrestrial material excavated from the crater, this component of meteorites is easily identified. By 1990 geologists had located the impact site itself in the Yucat region of Mexico. The crater, now deeply buried in sediment, was originally about 200 kilometers in diameter.
This impact released an enormous amount of energy, excavating a crater about twice as large as the lunar crater Tycho. The explosion lifted about 100 trillion tons of dust into the atmosphere, as can be determined by measuring the thickness of the sediment layer formed when this dust settled to the surface. Such a quantity of material would have blocked the sunlight completely from reaching the surface, plunging Earth into a period of cold and darkness that lasted at least several months. The explosion is also calculated to have produced vast quantities of nitric acid and melted rock that sprayed out over much of Earth, starting widespread fires that must have consumed most terrestrial forests and grassland. Presumably, those environmental disasters could have been responsible for the mass extinction, including the death of the dinosaurs.
Several other mass extinctions in the geological record have been tentatively identified with large impacts, but none is so dramatic as the Cretaceous event. But even without such specific documentation, it is clear that impacts of this size do occur and that their results can be catastrophic. What is a catastrophe for one group of living things, however, may create opportunities for another group. Following each mass extinction, there is a sudden evolutionary burst as new species develop to fill the ecological niches opened by the event.
Impacts by meteorites represent one mechanism that could cause global catastrophes and seriously influence the evolution of life all over the planet. According to some estimates, the majority of all extinctions of species may be due to such impacts. Such a perspective fundamentally changes our view of biological evolution. The standard criterion for the survival of a species is its success in competing with other species and adapting to slowly changing environments. Yet an equally important criterion is the ability of a species to survive random global ecological catastrophes due to impacts.
Earth is a target in a cosmic shooting gallery, subject to random violent events that were unsuspected a few decades ago. In 1991 the United States Congress asked NASA to investigate the hazard posed today by large impacts on Earth. The group conducting the study concluded from a detailed analysis that impacts from meteorites can indeed be hazardous. Although there is always some risk that a large impact could occur, careful study shows that this risk is quite small. | 1586.txt | 1 |
[
"Sense of values",
"Point of view",
"Calculation",
"Complication"
] | The word perspective in the passage is closest in the meaning to | There is increasing evidence that the impacts of meteorites have had important effects on Earth, particularly in the field of biological evolution. Such impacts continue to pose a natural hazard to life on Earth. Twice in the twentieth century, large meteorite objects are known to have collided with Earth.
If an impact is large enough, it can disturb the environment of the entire Earth and cause an ecological catastrophe. The best-documented such impact took place 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period of geological history. This break in Earth's history is marked by a mass extinction, when as many as half the species on the planet became extinct. While there are a dozen or more mass extinctions in the geological record, the Cretaceous mass extinction has always intrigued paleontologists because it marks the end of the age of the dinosaurs. For tens of millions of years, those great creatures had flourished. Then, suddenly, they disappeared.
The body that impacted Earth at the end of the Cretaceous period was a meteorite with a mass of more than a trillion tons and a diameter of at least 10 kilometers. Scientists first identified this impact in 1980 from the worldwide layer of sediment deposited from the dust cloud that enveloped the planet after the impact. This sediment layer is enriched in the rare metal iridium and other elements that are relatively abundant in a meteorite but very rare in the crust of Earth. Even diluted by the terrestrial material excavated from the crater, this component of meteorites is easily identified. By 1990 geologists had located the impact site itself in the Yucat region of Mexico. The crater, now deeply buried in sediment, was originally about 200 kilometers in diameter.
This impact released an enormous amount of energy, excavating a crater about twice as large as the lunar crater Tycho. The explosion lifted about 100 trillion tons of dust into the atmosphere, as can be determined by measuring the thickness of the sediment layer formed when this dust settled to the surface. Such a quantity of material would have blocked the sunlight completely from reaching the surface, plunging Earth into a period of cold and darkness that lasted at least several months. The explosion is also calculated to have produced vast quantities of nitric acid and melted rock that sprayed out over much of Earth, starting widespread fires that must have consumed most terrestrial forests and grassland. Presumably, those environmental disasters could have been responsible for the mass extinction, including the death of the dinosaurs.
Several other mass extinctions in the geological record have been tentatively identified with large impacts, but none is so dramatic as the Cretaceous event. But even without such specific documentation, it is clear that impacts of this size do occur and that their results can be catastrophic. What is a catastrophe for one group of living things, however, may create opportunities for another group. Following each mass extinction, there is a sudden evolutionary burst as new species develop to fill the ecological niches opened by the event.
Impacts by meteorites represent one mechanism that could cause global catastrophes and seriously influence the evolution of life all over the planet. According to some estimates, the majority of all extinctions of species may be due to such impacts. Such a perspective fundamentally changes our view of biological evolution. The standard criterion for the survival of a species is its success in competing with other species and adapting to slowly changing environments. Yet an equally important criterion is the ability of a species to survive random global ecological catastrophes due to impacts.
Earth is a target in a cosmic shooting gallery, subject to random violent events that were unsuspected a few decades ago. In 1991 the United States Congress asked NASA to investigate the hazard posed today by large impacts on Earth. The group conducting the study concluded from a detailed analysis that impacts from meteorites can indeed be hazardous. Although there is always some risk that a large impact could occur, careful study shows that this risk is quite small. | 1586.txt | 1 |
[
"The most important factor for the survival of a species is its ability to compete and adapt to gradual changes in its environment.",
"The ability of a species to compete and adapt to a gradually changing environment is not the only ability that is essential for survival.",
"Since most extinctions of species are due to major meteorite impacts, the ability to survive such impacts is the most important factor for the survival of a species.",
"The factors that are most important for the survival of a species vary significantly from one species to another."
] | Paragraph 6 supports which of the following statements about the factors that are essential for the survival of a species? | There is increasing evidence that the impacts of meteorites have had important effects on Earth, particularly in the field of biological evolution. Such impacts continue to pose a natural hazard to life on Earth. Twice in the twentieth century, large meteorite objects are known to have collided with Earth.
If an impact is large enough, it can disturb the environment of the entire Earth and cause an ecological catastrophe. The best-documented such impact took place 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period of geological history. This break in Earth's history is marked by a mass extinction, when as many as half the species on the planet became extinct. While there are a dozen or more mass extinctions in the geological record, the Cretaceous mass extinction has always intrigued paleontologists because it marks the end of the age of the dinosaurs. For tens of millions of years, those great creatures had flourished. Then, suddenly, they disappeared.
The body that impacted Earth at the end of the Cretaceous period was a meteorite with a mass of more than a trillion tons and a diameter of at least 10 kilometers. Scientists first identified this impact in 1980 from the worldwide layer of sediment deposited from the dust cloud that enveloped the planet after the impact. This sediment layer is enriched in the rare metal iridium and other elements that are relatively abundant in a meteorite but very rare in the crust of Earth. Even diluted by the terrestrial material excavated from the crater, this component of meteorites is easily identified. By 1990 geologists had located the impact site itself in the Yucat region of Mexico. The crater, now deeply buried in sediment, was originally about 200 kilometers in diameter.
This impact released an enormous amount of energy, excavating a crater about twice as large as the lunar crater Tycho. The explosion lifted about 100 trillion tons of dust into the atmosphere, as can be determined by measuring the thickness of the sediment layer formed when this dust settled to the surface. Such a quantity of material would have blocked the sunlight completely from reaching the surface, plunging Earth into a period of cold and darkness that lasted at least several months. The explosion is also calculated to have produced vast quantities of nitric acid and melted rock that sprayed out over much of Earth, starting widespread fires that must have consumed most terrestrial forests and grassland. Presumably, those environmental disasters could have been responsible for the mass extinction, including the death of the dinosaurs.
Several other mass extinctions in the geological record have been tentatively identified with large impacts, but none is so dramatic as the Cretaceous event. But even without such specific documentation, it is clear that impacts of this size do occur and that their results can be catastrophic. What is a catastrophe for one group of living things, however, may create opportunities for another group. Following each mass extinction, there is a sudden evolutionary burst as new species develop to fill the ecological niches opened by the event.
Impacts by meteorites represent one mechanism that could cause global catastrophes and seriously influence the evolution of life all over the planet. According to some estimates, the majority of all extinctions of species may be due to such impacts. Such a perspective fundamentally changes our view of biological evolution. The standard criterion for the survival of a species is its success in competing with other species and adapting to slowly changing environments. Yet an equally important criterion is the ability of a species to survive random global ecological catastrophes due to impacts.
Earth is a target in a cosmic shooting gallery, subject to random violent events that were unsuspected a few decades ago. In 1991 the United States Congress asked NASA to investigate the hazard posed today by large impacts on Earth. The group conducting the study concluded from a detailed analysis that impacts from meteorites can indeed be hazardous. Although there is always some risk that a large impact could occur, careful study shows that this risk is quite small. | 1586.txt | 1 |
[
"Paleontologists",
"Geologists",
"The United States Congress",
"NASA"
] | According to the passage, who conducted investigations about the current dangers posed by large meteorite impacts on Earth? | There is increasing evidence that the impacts of meteorites have had important effects on Earth, particularly in the field of biological evolution. Such impacts continue to pose a natural hazard to life on Earth. Twice in the twentieth century, large meteorite objects are known to have collided with Earth.
If an impact is large enough, it can disturb the environment of the entire Earth and cause an ecological catastrophe. The best-documented such impact took place 65 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period of geological history. This break in Earth's history is marked by a mass extinction, when as many as half the species on the planet became extinct. While there are a dozen or more mass extinctions in the geological record, the Cretaceous mass extinction has always intrigued paleontologists because it marks the end of the age of the dinosaurs. For tens of millions of years, those great creatures had flourished. Then, suddenly, they disappeared.
The body that impacted Earth at the end of the Cretaceous period was a meteorite with a mass of more than a trillion tons and a diameter of at least 10 kilometers. Scientists first identified this impact in 1980 from the worldwide layer of sediment deposited from the dust cloud that enveloped the planet after the impact. This sediment layer is enriched in the rare metal iridium and other elements that are relatively abundant in a meteorite but very rare in the crust of Earth. Even diluted by the terrestrial material excavated from the crater, this component of meteorites is easily identified. By 1990 geologists had located the impact site itself in the Yucat region of Mexico. The crater, now deeply buried in sediment, was originally about 200 kilometers in diameter.
This impact released an enormous amount of energy, excavating a crater about twice as large as the lunar crater Tycho. The explosion lifted about 100 trillion tons of dust into the atmosphere, as can be determined by measuring the thickness of the sediment layer formed when this dust settled to the surface. Such a quantity of material would have blocked the sunlight completely from reaching the surface, plunging Earth into a period of cold and darkness that lasted at least several months. The explosion is also calculated to have produced vast quantities of nitric acid and melted rock that sprayed out over much of Earth, starting widespread fires that must have consumed most terrestrial forests and grassland. Presumably, those environmental disasters could have been responsible for the mass extinction, including the death of the dinosaurs.
Several other mass extinctions in the geological record have been tentatively identified with large impacts, but none is so dramatic as the Cretaceous event. But even without such specific documentation, it is clear that impacts of this size do occur and that their results can be catastrophic. What is a catastrophe for one group of living things, however, may create opportunities for another group. Following each mass extinction, there is a sudden evolutionary burst as new species develop to fill the ecological niches opened by the event.
Impacts by meteorites represent one mechanism that could cause global catastrophes and seriously influence the evolution of life all over the planet. According to some estimates, the majority of all extinctions of species may be due to such impacts. Such a perspective fundamentally changes our view of biological evolution. The standard criterion for the survival of a species is its success in competing with other species and adapting to slowly changing environments. Yet an equally important criterion is the ability of a species to survive random global ecological catastrophes due to impacts.
Earth is a target in a cosmic shooting gallery, subject to random violent events that were unsuspected a few decades ago. In 1991 the United States Congress asked NASA to investigate the hazard posed today by large impacts on Earth. The group conducting the study concluded from a detailed analysis that impacts from meteorites can indeed be hazardous. Although there is always some risk that a large impact could occur, careful study shows that this risk is quite small. | 1586.txt | 3 |
[
"The Congress.",
"The Federal government.",
"The President.",
"The supreme Court."
] | Who makes the laws? | The United States is a federal union of 50 states.The capital of national government is in Washington,D.C.(District of Columbia).The federal constitution sets up the structures of the national government and lists its powers and activities.The constitution gives Congress the authority to make laws which are necessary for the common defense and the good of the nation.It also gives the federal government the power to deal with national and international problems that involve more than one state.All powers that are not given to the federal government by the constitution are the responsibility of the individual states.
The federal government has three branches--the executive,the legislative,and the judicial.The legislative brandch makes the laws,executive branch carries out the laws,and judicial branch interprets the laws.The President heads the executive branch and the Supreme Court heads the judicial branch.The legislative branch includes both houses of Congress--the Senate and the House of Reprsentatives.The constitution limits the powers of each branch and prevents one branch from gaining too much power.For example,Congress can pass a Law the President may sign it.Nevertheless,the Supreme Court can declare the law unconstitutional and nullify it.
All government in the United States is "of the people,by the people and for the people".The people elect the President and the members of Congress.However,the President appoints the heads of federal departments and the Supreme Court judges.Every citizen votes in secret.Consequently,no one knows for whom and indevidual votes.The people believe that their government should provide a frameword and order within which they are left free to run their own lives. | 2948.txt | 0 |
[
"the state of the COlumbia",
"none of the fifty states",
"the state of New York",
"the state of Washington"
] | The capital of the United States lies in _ . | The United States is a federal union of 50 states.The capital of national government is in Washington,D.C.(District of Columbia).The federal constitution sets up the structures of the national government and lists its powers and activities.The constitution gives Congress the authority to make laws which are necessary for the common defense and the good of the nation.It also gives the federal government the power to deal with national and international problems that involve more than one state.All powers that are not given to the federal government by the constitution are the responsibility of the individual states.
The federal government has three branches--the executive,the legislative,and the judicial.The legislative brandch makes the laws,executive branch carries out the laws,and judicial branch interprets the laws.The President heads the executive branch and the Supreme Court heads the judicial branch.The legislative branch includes both houses of Congress--the Senate and the House of Reprsentatives.The constitution limits the powers of each branch and prevents one branch from gaining too much power.For example,Congress can pass a Law the President may sign it.Nevertheless,the Supreme Court can declare the law unconstitutional and nullify it.
All government in the United States is "of the people,by the people and for the people".The people elect the President and the members of Congress.However,the President appoints the heads of federal departments and the Supreme Court judges.Every citizen votes in secret.Consequently,no one knows for whom and indevidual votes.The people believe that their government should provide a frameword and order within which they are left free to run their own lives. | 2948.txt | 1 |
[
"The heads of federal departments are elected by the people.",
"The President sets up the structures of the federal government.",
"The judicial branch has the authority to explain the laws.",
"The constitution gives all powers to the federal government."
] | Based on what you can know from the passage,which of the following statements is true? | The United States is a federal union of 50 states.The capital of national government is in Washington,D.C.(District of Columbia).The federal constitution sets up the structures of the national government and lists its powers and activities.The constitution gives Congress the authority to make laws which are necessary for the common defense and the good of the nation.It also gives the federal government the power to deal with national and international problems that involve more than one state.All powers that are not given to the federal government by the constitution are the responsibility of the individual states.
The federal government has three branches--the executive,the legislative,and the judicial.The legislative brandch makes the laws,executive branch carries out the laws,and judicial branch interprets the laws.The President heads the executive branch and the Supreme Court heads the judicial branch.The legislative branch includes both houses of Congress--the Senate and the House of Reprsentatives.The constitution limits the powers of each branch and prevents one branch from gaining too much power.For example,Congress can pass a Law the President may sign it.Nevertheless,the Supreme Court can declare the law unconstitutional and nullify it.
All government in the United States is "of the people,by the people and for the people".The people elect the President and the members of Congress.However,the President appoints the heads of federal departments and the Supreme Court judges.Every citizen votes in secret.Consequently,no one knows for whom and indevidual votes.The people believe that their government should provide a frameword and order within which they are left free to run their own lives. | 2948.txt | 2 |
[
"the U.S. has fifty states",
"the individual states have their own governments",
"the federal government has three branches",
"any one branch should not have too much power"
] | The constitution limits the powers of each branch of the federal government because _ . | The United States is a federal union of 50 states.The capital of national government is in Washington,D.C.(District of Columbia).The federal constitution sets up the structures of the national government and lists its powers and activities.The constitution gives Congress the authority to make laws which are necessary for the common defense and the good of the nation.It also gives the federal government the power to deal with national and international problems that involve more than one state.All powers that are not given to the federal government by the constitution are the responsibility of the individual states.
The federal government has three branches--the executive,the legislative,and the judicial.The legislative brandch makes the laws,executive branch carries out the laws,and judicial branch interprets the laws.The President heads the executive branch and the Supreme Court heads the judicial branch.The legislative branch includes both houses of Congress--the Senate and the House of Reprsentatives.The constitution limits the powers of each branch and prevents one branch from gaining too much power.For example,Congress can pass a Law the President may sign it.Nevertheless,the Supreme Court can declare the law unconstitutional and nullify it.
All government in the United States is "of the people,by the people and for the people".The people elect the President and the members of Congress.However,the President appoints the heads of federal departments and the Supreme Court judges.Every citizen votes in secret.Consequently,no one knows for whom and indevidual votes.The people believe that their government should provide a frameword and order within which they are left free to run their own lives. | 2948.txt | 3 |
[
"the three branches of the U.S. government",
"American government",
"the Federal Consititution",
"the people should be left free to run their own lives"
] | The main point of this passage is _ . | The United States is a federal union of 50 states.The capital of national government is in Washington,D.C.(District of Columbia).The federal constitution sets up the structures of the national government and lists its powers and activities.The constitution gives Congress the authority to make laws which are necessary for the common defense and the good of the nation.It also gives the federal government the power to deal with national and international problems that involve more than one state.All powers that are not given to the federal government by the constitution are the responsibility of the individual states.
The federal government has three branches--the executive,the legislative,and the judicial.The legislative brandch makes the laws,executive branch carries out the laws,and judicial branch interprets the laws.The President heads the executive branch and the Supreme Court heads the judicial branch.The legislative branch includes both houses of Congress--the Senate and the House of Reprsentatives.The constitution limits the powers of each branch and prevents one branch from gaining too much power.For example,Congress can pass a Law the President may sign it.Nevertheless,the Supreme Court can declare the law unconstitutional and nullify it.
All government in the United States is "of the people,by the people and for the people".The people elect the President and the members of Congress.However,the President appoints the heads of federal departments and the Supreme Court judges.Every citizen votes in secret.Consequently,no one knows for whom and indevidual votes.The people believe that their government should provide a frameword and order within which they are left free to run their own lives. | 2948.txt | 1 |
[
"Something about Solar Energy and Pollution.",
"Solar Energy.",
"Energy and Pollution",
"Energy and Money."
] | Which statement best expresses the main idea? | Solar energy for your home is coming. It can help you as a single home owner. It can help the whole country as well. Whether or not solar energy can save your money depends on many things. Where you live is one factor. The type of home you have is another. Things like insulation present energy coasts, and the type of system you buy are added factors.
Using solar energy can help save our precious fuel. As you know, our supplies of oil and gas are very limited. There is just not enough on hand to meet all our future energy needs. And when Mother Nature says that's all. The only way we can delay hearing those words is by starting to save energy now and by using other sources, like the sun.
We wont have to worry about the suns running out of energy for another several billion years or so. Besides begin an endless source of energy, the use of the sun has other advantages as well. The sun doesn't offer as many problems as other energy sources. For example, fossil fuel plants add to already high pollution levels. With solar energy, we will still need sources of energy, but we wont need as much. That means we can cut down on our pollution problems.
With all these good points, why don't we use more solar power? There are many reasons for this. The biggest reason is money. Until now, it was just not practical for a home owner to put in a solar unit. There were cheaper sources of energy. All that is changing now. Solar coats are starting to equal the costs of oil and electricity. Experts say that gas, oil and electricity prices will continue to rise. The demand for electricity is increasing rapidly. But new power plants will use more gas, oil or coal. Already in some places the supply of electricity is being rationed. Solar energy is now in its infancy. It could soon grow to become a major part of our nations energy supply. | 779.txt | 1 |
[
"the earth and natural resources",
"mother nature",
"the sun",
"our precious fuel"
] | Solar energy can help us save _ . | Solar energy for your home is coming. It can help you as a single home owner. It can help the whole country as well. Whether or not solar energy can save your money depends on many things. Where you live is one factor. The type of home you have is another. Things like insulation present energy coasts, and the type of system you buy are added factors.
Using solar energy can help save our precious fuel. As you know, our supplies of oil and gas are very limited. There is just not enough on hand to meet all our future energy needs. And when Mother Nature says that's all. The only way we can delay hearing those words is by starting to save energy now and by using other sources, like the sun.
We wont have to worry about the suns running out of energy for another several billion years or so. Besides begin an endless source of energy, the use of the sun has other advantages as well. The sun doesn't offer as many problems as other energy sources. For example, fossil fuel plants add to already high pollution levels. With solar energy, we will still need sources of energy, but we wont need as much. That means we can cut down on our pollution problems.
With all these good points, why don't we use more solar power? There are many reasons for this. The biggest reason is money. Until now, it was just not practical for a home owner to put in a solar unit. There were cheaper sources of energy. All that is changing now. Solar coats are starting to equal the costs of oil and electricity. Experts say that gas, oil and electricity prices will continue to rise. The demand for electricity is increasing rapidly. But new power plants will use more gas, oil or coal. Already in some places the supply of electricity is being rationed. Solar energy is now in its infancy. It could soon grow to become a major part of our nations energy supply. | 779.txt | 3 |
[
"several million years",
"several hundred years",
"several billion years",
"several thousand years"
] | The sun is an endless source of energy, it will not run out of it for _ . | Solar energy for your home is coming. It can help you as a single home owner. It can help the whole country as well. Whether or not solar energy can save your money depends on many things. Where you live is one factor. The type of home you have is another. Things like insulation present energy coasts, and the type of system you buy are added factors.
Using solar energy can help save our precious fuel. As you know, our supplies of oil and gas are very limited. There is just not enough on hand to meet all our future energy needs. And when Mother Nature says that's all. The only way we can delay hearing those words is by starting to save energy now and by using other sources, like the sun.
We wont have to worry about the suns running out of energy for another several billion years or so. Besides begin an endless source of energy, the use of the sun has other advantages as well. The sun doesn't offer as many problems as other energy sources. For example, fossil fuel plants add to already high pollution levels. With solar energy, we will still need sources of energy, but we wont need as much. That means we can cut down on our pollution problems.
With all these good points, why don't we use more solar power? There are many reasons for this. The biggest reason is money. Until now, it was just not practical for a home owner to put in a solar unit. There were cheaper sources of energy. All that is changing now. Solar coats are starting to equal the costs of oil and electricity. Experts say that gas, oil and electricity prices will continue to rise. The demand for electricity is increasing rapidly. But new power plants will use more gas, oil or coal. Already in some places the supply of electricity is being rationed. Solar energy is now in its infancy. It could soon grow to become a major part of our nations energy supply. | 779.txt | 2 |
[
"Energy from coal would not pollute our living environment.",
"Energy from natural gas would not pollute our living environment.",
"Energy from the sun would not pollute our living environment.",
"Energy from oil would not pollute our living environment."
] | Which of the following statements is correct? | Solar energy for your home is coming. It can help you as a single home owner. It can help the whole country as well. Whether or not solar energy can save your money depends on many things. Where you live is one factor. The type of home you have is another. Things like insulation present energy coasts, and the type of system you buy are added factors.
Using solar energy can help save our precious fuel. As you know, our supplies of oil and gas are very limited. There is just not enough on hand to meet all our future energy needs. And when Mother Nature says that's all. The only way we can delay hearing those words is by starting to save energy now and by using other sources, like the sun.
We wont have to worry about the suns running out of energy for another several billion years or so. Besides begin an endless source of energy, the use of the sun has other advantages as well. The sun doesn't offer as many problems as other energy sources. For example, fossil fuel plants add to already high pollution levels. With solar energy, we will still need sources of energy, but we wont need as much. That means we can cut down on our pollution problems.
With all these good points, why don't we use more solar power? There are many reasons for this. The biggest reason is money. Until now, it was just not practical for a home owner to put in a solar unit. There were cheaper sources of energy. All that is changing now. Solar coats are starting to equal the costs of oil and electricity. Experts say that gas, oil and electricity prices will continue to rise. The demand for electricity is increasing rapidly. But new power plants will use more gas, oil or coal. Already in some places the supply of electricity is being rationed. Solar energy is now in its infancy. It could soon grow to become a major part of our nations energy supply. | 779.txt | 2 |
[
"but it will be considered as an important part of our nation s energy supply",
"yet we will build more power plants",
"and the supply of electricity will be rationed",
"but we don t need practice energy rationing now"
] | Solar energy is now in its infancy, _ . | Solar energy for your home is coming. It can help you as a single home owner. It can help the whole country as well. Whether or not solar energy can save your money depends on many things. Where you live is one factor. The type of home you have is another. Things like insulation present energy coasts, and the type of system you buy are added factors.
Using solar energy can help save our precious fuel. As you know, our supplies of oil and gas are very limited. There is just not enough on hand to meet all our future energy needs. And when Mother Nature says that's all. The only way we can delay hearing those words is by starting to save energy now and by using other sources, like the sun.
We wont have to worry about the suns running out of energy for another several billion years or so. Besides begin an endless source of energy, the use of the sun has other advantages as well. The sun doesn't offer as many problems as other energy sources. For example, fossil fuel plants add to already high pollution levels. With solar energy, we will still need sources of energy, but we wont need as much. That means we can cut down on our pollution problems.
With all these good points, why don't we use more solar power? There are many reasons for this. The biggest reason is money. Until now, it was just not practical for a home owner to put in a solar unit. There were cheaper sources of energy. All that is changing now. Solar coats are starting to equal the costs of oil and electricity. Experts say that gas, oil and electricity prices will continue to rise. The demand for electricity is increasing rapidly. But new power plants will use more gas, oil or coal. Already in some places the supply of electricity is being rationed. Solar energy is now in its infancy. It could soon grow to become a major part of our nations energy supply. | 779.txt | 0 |
[
"It is the key to paperless office.",
"It will be replaced by the computer soon.",
"It is more troublesome than the computer.",
"It can hardly survive in the digital age."
] | Which of the following is TRUE about the carbon paper? | The "paperless office" has earned a proud place on lists of technological promises that did not come to pass. Surely, though, the more modest goal of he carbon-paperless office is within the reach of mankind? Carbon paper allows two copies of a document to be made at once. Nowadays, a couple of keystrokes can do the same thing with a lot less fuss.
Yet carbon paper persists. Forms still need to be filled out in a way that produces copies. This should not come as a surprise. Innovation tends to create new niches, rather than refill those that already exist. So technologies may become marginal, but they rarely go extinct. And today the little niches in which old technologies take refuge are ever more viable and accessible, thanks to the Internet and the fact that production no longer needs to be so mass; making small numbers of obscure items is growing easier.
On top of that, a widespread Technology of nostalgia seeks to preserve all the ways people have ever done anything, simply because they are kind of neat. As a result technologies from all the way back to the stone age persist and even flourish in the modern world. According to What Technology Wants, a book by Kevin Kelly, one of the founders of Wired magazine, America's flintknappers produce over a million new arrow and spear heads every year. One of the things technology wants, it seems, is to survive.
Carbon paper, to the extent that it may have a desire for self-preservation, may also take comfort in the fact that, for all that this is a digital age, many similar products are hanging on, and even making comebacks. Indeed, digital technologies may prove to be more transient than their predecessors. They are based on the idea that the medium on which a file's constituent 0s and 1s are stored doesn't matter, and on Alan Turing's insight that any computer can mimic any other, given memory enough and time. This suggests that new digital technologies should be able to wipe out their predecessors completely. And early digital technologies do seem to be vanishing. The music cassette is enjoying a little renaissance, its very faithlessness apparently part of its charm; but digital audio tape seems doomed.
So revolutionary digital technologies may yet discard older ones to the dustbin. Perhaps this will be the case with a remarkable breakthrough in molecular technology that could, in principle, store all the data ever recorded in a device that could fit in the back of a van. In this instance, it would not be a matter of the new extinguishing the old. Though it may never have been used for MP3s and PDFs before, DNA has been storing data for over three billion years. And it shows no sign of going extinct. | 892.txt | 2 |
[
"secure",
"dynamic",
"feasible",
"flexible"
] | According to the passage, "viable" ( Line 4, Para. 2) means _ | The "paperless office" has earned a proud place on lists of technological promises that did not come to pass. Surely, though, the more modest goal of he carbon-paperless office is within the reach of mankind? Carbon paper allows two copies of a document to be made at once. Nowadays, a couple of keystrokes can do the same thing with a lot less fuss.
Yet carbon paper persists. Forms still need to be filled out in a way that produces copies. This should not come as a surprise. Innovation tends to create new niches, rather than refill those that already exist. So technologies may become marginal, but they rarely go extinct. And today the little niches in which old technologies take refuge are ever more viable and accessible, thanks to the Internet and the fact that production no longer needs to be so mass; making small numbers of obscure items is growing easier.
On top of that, a widespread Technology of nostalgia seeks to preserve all the ways people have ever done anything, simply because they are kind of neat. As a result technologies from all the way back to the stone age persist and even flourish in the modern world. According to What Technology Wants, a book by Kevin Kelly, one of the founders of Wired magazine, America's flintknappers produce over a million new arrow and spear heads every year. One of the things technology wants, it seems, is to survive.
Carbon paper, to the extent that it may have a desire for self-preservation, may also take comfort in the fact that, for all that this is a digital age, many similar products are hanging on, and even making comebacks. Indeed, digital technologies may prove to be more transient than their predecessors. They are based on the idea that the medium on which a file's constituent 0s and 1s are stored doesn't matter, and on Alan Turing's insight that any computer can mimic any other, given memory enough and time. This suggests that new digital technologies should be able to wipe out their predecessors completely. And early digital technologies do seem to be vanishing. The music cassette is enjoying a little renaissance, its very faithlessness apparently part of its charm; but digital audio tape seems doomed.
So revolutionary digital technologies may yet discard older ones to the dustbin. Perhaps this will be the case with a remarkable breakthrough in molecular technology that could, in principle, store all the data ever recorded in a device that could fit in the back of a van. In this instance, it would not be a matter of the new extinguishing the old. Though it may never have been used for MP3s and PDFs before, DNA has been storing data for over three billion years. And it shows no sign of going extinct. | 892.txt | 2 |
[
"To point out that old Technology of nostalgia will flourish in the modern world.",
"To illustrate the importance of flintknappers.",
"To show that flintknapping is one of the stone age technologies.",
"To prove that old technologies seemingly never die."
] | Why does the author mention the example of What Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly? | The "paperless office" has earned a proud place on lists of technological promises that did not come to pass. Surely, though, the more modest goal of he carbon-paperless office is within the reach of mankind? Carbon paper allows two copies of a document to be made at once. Nowadays, a couple of keystrokes can do the same thing with a lot less fuss.
Yet carbon paper persists. Forms still need to be filled out in a way that produces copies. This should not come as a surprise. Innovation tends to create new niches, rather than refill those that already exist. So technologies may become marginal, but they rarely go extinct. And today the little niches in which old technologies take refuge are ever more viable and accessible, thanks to the Internet and the fact that production no longer needs to be so mass; making small numbers of obscure items is growing easier.
On top of that, a widespread Technology of nostalgia seeks to preserve all the ways people have ever done anything, simply because they are kind of neat. As a result technologies from all the way back to the stone age persist and even flourish in the modern world. According to What Technology Wants, a book by Kevin Kelly, one of the founders of Wired magazine, America's flintknappers produce over a million new arrow and spear heads every year. One of the things technology wants, it seems, is to survive.
Carbon paper, to the extent that it may have a desire for self-preservation, may also take comfort in the fact that, for all that this is a digital age, many similar products are hanging on, and even making comebacks. Indeed, digital technologies may prove to be more transient than their predecessors. They are based on the idea that the medium on which a file's constituent 0s and 1s are stored doesn't matter, and on Alan Turing's insight that any computer can mimic any other, given memory enough and time. This suggests that new digital technologies should be able to wipe out their predecessors completely. And early digital technologies do seem to be vanishing. The music cassette is enjoying a little renaissance, its very faithlessness apparently part of its charm; but digital audio tape seems doomed.
So revolutionary digital technologies may yet discard older ones to the dustbin. Perhaps this will be the case with a remarkable breakthrough in molecular technology that could, in principle, store all the data ever recorded in a device that could fit in the back of a van. In this instance, it would not be a matter of the new extinguishing the old. Though it may never have been used for MP3s and PDFs before, DNA has been storing data for over three billion years. And it shows no sign of going extinct. | 892.txt | 3 |
[
"Digital audio tape will be vanished because of its accuracy.",
"Digital technologies have been proved to outlive the old technologies.",
"Early digital technologies will never go extinct.",
"The future of digital technologies will be used for DNA research."
] | What can be inferred about digital technologies? | The "paperless office" has earned a proud place on lists of technological promises that did not come to pass. Surely, though, the more modest goal of he carbon-paperless office is within the reach of mankind? Carbon paper allows two copies of a document to be made at once. Nowadays, a couple of keystrokes can do the same thing with a lot less fuss.
Yet carbon paper persists. Forms still need to be filled out in a way that produces copies. This should not come as a surprise. Innovation tends to create new niches, rather than refill those that already exist. So technologies may become marginal, but they rarely go extinct. And today the little niches in which old technologies take refuge are ever more viable and accessible, thanks to the Internet and the fact that production no longer needs to be so mass; making small numbers of obscure items is growing easier.
On top of that, a widespread Technology of nostalgia seeks to preserve all the ways people have ever done anything, simply because they are kind of neat. As a result technologies from all the way back to the stone age persist and even flourish in the modern world. According to What Technology Wants, a book by Kevin Kelly, one of the founders of Wired magazine, America's flintknappers produce over a million new arrow and spear heads every year. One of the things technology wants, it seems, is to survive.
Carbon paper, to the extent that it may have a desire for self-preservation, may also take comfort in the fact that, for all that this is a digital age, many similar products are hanging on, and even making comebacks. Indeed, digital technologies may prove to be more transient than their predecessors. They are based on the idea that the medium on which a file's constituent 0s and 1s are stored doesn't matter, and on Alan Turing's insight that any computer can mimic any other, given memory enough and time. This suggests that new digital technologies should be able to wipe out their predecessors completely. And early digital technologies do seem to be vanishing. The music cassette is enjoying a little renaissance, its very faithlessness apparently part of its charm; but digital audio tape seems doomed.
So revolutionary digital technologies may yet discard older ones to the dustbin. Perhaps this will be the case with a remarkable breakthrough in molecular technology that could, in principle, store all the data ever recorded in a device that could fit in the back of a van. In this instance, it would not be a matter of the new extinguishing the old. Though it may never have been used for MP3s and PDFs before, DNA has been storing data for over three billion years. And it shows no sign of going extinct. | 892.txt | 0 |
[
"the difficulty of the realization of paperless office",
"the fact that newest technologies may die out while the oldest survive",
"the reason why old technologies will never be on the edge of extinction",
"the importance of keeping improving technologies all the time"
] | The passage mainly concerned with | The "paperless office" has earned a proud place on lists of technological promises that did not come to pass. Surely, though, the more modest goal of he carbon-paperless office is within the reach of mankind? Carbon paper allows two copies of a document to be made at once. Nowadays, a couple of keystrokes can do the same thing with a lot less fuss.
Yet carbon paper persists. Forms still need to be filled out in a way that produces copies. This should not come as a surprise. Innovation tends to create new niches, rather than refill those that already exist. So technologies may become marginal, but they rarely go extinct. And today the little niches in which old technologies take refuge are ever more viable and accessible, thanks to the Internet and the fact that production no longer needs to be so mass; making small numbers of obscure items is growing easier.
On top of that, a widespread Technology of nostalgia seeks to preserve all the ways people have ever done anything, simply because they are kind of neat. As a result technologies from all the way back to the stone age persist and even flourish in the modern world. According to What Technology Wants, a book by Kevin Kelly, one of the founders of Wired magazine, America's flintknappers produce over a million new arrow and spear heads every year. One of the things technology wants, it seems, is to survive.
Carbon paper, to the extent that it may have a desire for self-preservation, may also take comfort in the fact that, for all that this is a digital age, many similar products are hanging on, and even making comebacks. Indeed, digital technologies may prove to be more transient than their predecessors. They are based on the idea that the medium on which a file's constituent 0s and 1s are stored doesn't matter, and on Alan Turing's insight that any computer can mimic any other, given memory enough and time. This suggests that new digital technologies should be able to wipe out their predecessors completely. And early digital technologies do seem to be vanishing. The music cassette is enjoying a little renaissance, its very faithlessness apparently part of its charm; but digital audio tape seems doomed.
So revolutionary digital technologies may yet discard older ones to the dustbin. Perhaps this will be the case with a remarkable breakthrough in molecular technology that could, in principle, store all the data ever recorded in a device that could fit in the back of a van. In this instance, it would not be a matter of the new extinguishing the old. Though it may never have been used for MP3s and PDFs before, DNA has been storing data for over three billion years. And it shows no sign of going extinct. | 892.txt | 1 |
[
"use for their schoolwork",
"access the Internet",
"work at home",
"connect them to libraries"
] | The main purpose of the laptop program is to give each student a laptop to _ . | Laptop computers are popular all over the world.People use them on trains and airplanes, in airportsand hotels. These laptops connect people to theirworkplace. In the United States today, laptops alsoconnect students to their classrooms.
Westlake College in Virginia will start a laptopcomputer program that allows students to doschoolwork anywhere they want. Within five years, each of the 1500 students at the college willreceive a laptop. The laptops are part of a $10 million computer program at Westlake, a 110-year-old college. The students with laptops will also have access to the Internet. In addition,they will be able to use e-mail to "speak" with their teachers, their classmates, and theirfamilies. However, the most important part of the laptop program is that students will be ableto use computers without going to computer labs. They can work with it at home, in a fast-foodrestaurant or under the trees-anywhere at all!
Because of the many changes in computer technology, laptop use in higher education, such ascolleges and universities, is workable. As laptops become more powerful, they become moresimilar to desktop computers.
In addition, the portable computers can connect students to not only the Internet, but alsolibraries and other resources. State higher-education officials are studying how laptops can helpstudents. State officials are also testing laptop programs at other universities, too.
At Westlake College, more than 60 percent of the staff use computers. The laptops will allow allteachers to use computers in their lessons. As one Westlake teacher said, " Here we are in themiddle of Virginia and we're giving students a window on the world. They can see everythingand do everything." | 2389.txt | 0 |
[
"They don't really talk.",
"They use the computer language.",
"Laptops have speakers.",
"None of the above reasons is correct."
] | Why is the word "speak" in the second paragraph in quotation marks? | Laptop computers are popular all over the world.People use them on trains and airplanes, in airportsand hotels. These laptops connect people to theirworkplace. In the United States today, laptops alsoconnect students to their classrooms.
Westlake College in Virginia will start a laptopcomputer program that allows students to doschoolwork anywhere they want. Within five years, each of the 1500 students at the college willreceive a laptop. The laptops are part of a $10 million computer program at Westlake, a 110-year-old college. The students with laptops will also have access to the Internet. In addition,they will be able to use e-mail to "speak" with their teachers, their classmates, and theirfamilies. However, the most important part of the laptop program is that students will be ableto use computers without going to computer labs. They can work with it at home, in a fast-foodrestaurant or under the trees-anywhere at all!
Because of the many changes in computer technology, laptop use in higher education, such ascolleges and universities, is workable. As laptops become more powerful, they become moresimilar to desktop computers.
In addition, the portable computers can connect students to not only the Internet, but alsolibraries and other resources. State higher-education officials are studying how laptops can helpstudents. State officials are also testing laptop programs at other universities, too.
At Westlake College, more than 60 percent of the staff use computers. The laptops will allow allteachers to use computers in their lessons. As one Westlake teacher said, " Here we are in themiddle of Virginia and we're giving students a window on the world. They can see everythingand do everything." | 2389.txt | 0 |
[
"All teachers use computers.",
"1500 students have laptops.",
"It is an old college in America.",
"Students there can do everything."
] | Which of the following is true about Westlake College? | Laptop computers are popular all over the world.People use them on trains and airplanes, in airportsand hotels. These laptops connect people to theirworkplace. In the United States today, laptops alsoconnect students to their classrooms.
Westlake College in Virginia will start a laptopcomputer program that allows students to doschoolwork anywhere they want. Within five years, each of the 1500 students at the college willreceive a laptop. The laptops are part of a $10 million computer program at Westlake, a 110-year-old college. The students with laptops will also have access to the Internet. In addition,they will be able to use e-mail to "speak" with their teachers, their classmates, and theirfamilies. However, the most important part of the laptop program is that students will be ableto use computers without going to computer labs. They can work with it at home, in a fast-foodrestaurant or under the trees-anywhere at all!
Because of the many changes in computer technology, laptop use in higher education, such ascolleges and universities, is workable. As laptops become more powerful, they become moresimilar to desktop computers.
In addition, the portable computers can connect students to not only the Internet, but alsolibraries and other resources. State higher-education officials are studying how laptops can helpstudents. State officials are also testing laptop programs at other universities, too.
At Westlake College, more than 60 percent of the staff use computers. The laptops will allow allteachers to use computers in their lessons. As one Westlake teacher said, " Here we are in themiddle of Virginia and we're giving students a window on the world. They can see everythingand do everything." | 2389.txt | 2 |
[
"attend lectures on information technology",
"travel around the world",
"get information from around the world",
"have free laptops"
] | A window on the world in the last paragraph means that students can _ . | Laptop computers are popular all over the world.People use them on trains and airplanes, in airportsand hotels. These laptops connect people to theirworkplace. In the United States today, laptops alsoconnect students to their classrooms.
Westlake College in Virginia will start a laptopcomputer program that allows students to doschoolwork anywhere they want. Within five years, each of the 1500 students at the college willreceive a laptop. The laptops are part of a $10 million computer program at Westlake, a 110-year-old college. The students with laptops will also have access to the Internet. In addition,they will be able to use e-mail to "speak" with their teachers, their classmates, and theirfamilies. However, the most important part of the laptop program is that students will be ableto use computers without going to computer labs. They can work with it at home, in a fast-foodrestaurant or under the trees-anywhere at all!
Because of the many changes in computer technology, laptop use in higher education, such ascolleges and universities, is workable. As laptops become more powerful, they become moresimilar to desktop computers.
In addition, the portable computers can connect students to not only the Internet, but alsolibraries and other resources. State higher-education officials are studying how laptops can helpstudents. State officials are also testing laptop programs at other universities, too.
At Westlake College, more than 60 percent of the staff use computers. The laptops will allow allteachers to use computers in their lessons. As one Westlake teacher said, " Here we are in themiddle of Virginia and we're giving students a window on the world. They can see everythingand do everything." | 2389.txt | 2 |
[
"The program is successful.",
"The program is not workable.",
"The program is too expensive.",
"We don't know the result yet."
] | What can we infer from the passage? | Laptop computers are popular all over the world.People use them on trains and airplanes, in airportsand hotels. These laptops connect people to theirworkplace. In the United States today, laptops alsoconnect students to their classrooms.
Westlake College in Virginia will start a laptopcomputer program that allows students to doschoolwork anywhere they want. Within five years, each of the 1500 students at the college willreceive a laptop. The laptops are part of a $10 million computer program at Westlake, a 110-year-old college. The students with laptops will also have access to the Internet. In addition,they will be able to use e-mail to "speak" with their teachers, their classmates, and theirfamilies. However, the most important part of the laptop program is that students will be ableto use computers without going to computer labs. They can work with it at home, in a fast-foodrestaurant or under the trees-anywhere at all!
Because of the many changes in computer technology, laptop use in higher education, such ascolleges and universities, is workable. As laptops become more powerful, they become moresimilar to desktop computers.
In addition, the portable computers can connect students to not only the Internet, but alsolibraries and other resources. State higher-education officials are studying how laptops can helpstudents. State officials are also testing laptop programs at other universities, too.
At Westlake College, more than 60 percent of the staff use computers. The laptops will allow allteachers to use computers in their lessons. As one Westlake teacher said, " Here we are in themiddle of Virginia and we're giving students a window on the world. They can see everythingand do everything." | 2389.txt | 3 |
[
"What astronomers learned from the Surveyor and Apollo space missions.",
"Characteristics of the major terrains of the Moon.",
"The origin of the Moon's craters.",
"Techniques used to catalogue the Moon's land forms."
] | What does the passage mainly discuss? | The Moon, which has undergone a distinct and complex geological history, presents a striking appearance. The moon may be divided into two major terrains: the Maria (dark lowlands) and the Terrace (bright highlands). The contrast in the reflectivity (the capability of reflecting light) of these two terrains suggested to many early observers that the two terrains might have different compositions, and this supposition was confirmed by missions to the Moon such as Surveyor and Apollo. One of the most obvious differences between the terrains is the smoothness of the Maria in contrast to the roughness of the highlands. This roughness is mostly caused by the abundance of craters: the highlands are completely covered by large craters (greater than 40-50 km in diameter), while the craters of the Maria tend to be much smaller. It is now known that the vast majority of the Moon's craters were formed by the impact of solid bodies with the lunar surface.
Most of the near side of the Moon was thoroughly mapped and studied from telescopic pictures years before the age of space exploration. Earth-based telescopes can resolve objects as small as a few hundred meters on the lunar surface. Close observation of craters, combined with the way the Moon diffusely reflects sunlight, led to the understanding that the Moon is covered by a surface layer, or regolith, that overlies the solid rock of the Moon. Telescopic images permitted the cataloging of a bewildering array of land forms. Craters were studied for clues to their origin; the large wispy marks were seen. Strange, sinuous features were observed in the Maria. Although various land forms were catalogued, the majority of astronomers' attention was fixed on craters and their origins.
Astronomers have known for a fairly long time that the shape of craters changes as they increase in size. Small craters with diameters of less than 10-15 km have relatively simple shapes. They have rim crests that are elevated above the surrounding terrain, smooth, bowl-shaped interiors, and depths that are about one-sixth their diameters. The complexity of shape increases for larger craters. | 411.txt | 1 |
[
"altered",
"substituted",
"experienced",
"preserved"
] | The word "undergone" in line 1 is closest in meaning to | The Moon, which has undergone a distinct and complex geological history, presents a striking appearance. The moon may be divided into two major terrains: the Maria (dark lowlands) and the Terrace (bright highlands). The contrast in the reflectivity (the capability of reflecting light) of these two terrains suggested to many early observers that the two terrains might have different compositions, and this supposition was confirmed by missions to the Moon such as Surveyor and Apollo. One of the most obvious differences between the terrains is the smoothness of the Maria in contrast to the roughness of the highlands. This roughness is mostly caused by the abundance of craters: the highlands are completely covered by large craters (greater than 40-50 km in diameter), while the craters of the Maria tend to be much smaller. It is now known that the vast majority of the Moon's craters were formed by the impact of solid bodies with the lunar surface.
Most of the near side of the Moon was thoroughly mapped and studied from telescopic pictures years before the age of space exploration. Earth-based telescopes can resolve objects as small as a few hundred meters on the lunar surface. Close observation of craters, combined with the way the Moon diffusely reflects sunlight, led to the understanding that the Moon is covered by a surface layer, or regolith, that overlies the solid rock of the Moon. Telescopic images permitted the cataloging of a bewildering array of land forms. Craters were studied for clues to their origin; the large wispy marks were seen. Strange, sinuous features were observed in the Maria. Although various land forms were catalogued, the majority of astronomers' attention was fixed on craters and their origins.
Astronomers have known for a fairly long time that the shape of craters changes as they increase in size. Small craters with diameters of less than 10-15 km have relatively simple shapes. They have rim crests that are elevated above the surrounding terrain, smooth, bowl-shaped interiors, and depths that are about one-sixth their diameters. The complexity of shape increases for larger craters. | 411.txt | 2 |
[
"age",
"manner of creation",
"size",
"composition"
] | According to the passage , the Maria differ from the Terrace mainly in terms of | The Moon, which has undergone a distinct and complex geological history, presents a striking appearance. The moon may be divided into two major terrains: the Maria (dark lowlands) and the Terrace (bright highlands). The contrast in the reflectivity (the capability of reflecting light) of these two terrains suggested to many early observers that the two terrains might have different compositions, and this supposition was confirmed by missions to the Moon such as Surveyor and Apollo. One of the most obvious differences between the terrains is the smoothness of the Maria in contrast to the roughness of the highlands. This roughness is mostly caused by the abundance of craters: the highlands are completely covered by large craters (greater than 40-50 km in diameter), while the craters of the Maria tend to be much smaller. It is now known that the vast majority of the Moon's craters were formed by the impact of solid bodies with the lunar surface.
Most of the near side of the Moon was thoroughly mapped and studied from telescopic pictures years before the age of space exploration. Earth-based telescopes can resolve objects as small as a few hundred meters on the lunar surface. Close observation of craters, combined with the way the Moon diffusely reflects sunlight, led to the understanding that the Moon is covered by a surface layer, or regolith, that overlies the solid rock of the Moon. Telescopic images permitted the cataloging of a bewildering array of land forms. Craters were studied for clues to their origin; the large wispy marks were seen. Strange, sinuous features were observed in the Maria. Although various land forms were catalogued, the majority of astronomers' attention was fixed on craters and their origins.
Astronomers have known for a fairly long time that the shape of craters changes as they increase in size. Small craters with diameters of less than 10-15 km have relatively simple shapes. They have rim crests that are elevated above the surrounding terrain, smooth, bowl-shaped interiors, and depths that are about one-sixth their diameters. The complexity of shape increases for larger craters. | 411.txt | 3 |
[
"They confirmed earlier theories about the Moon's surface.",
"They revealed that previous ideas about the Moon's craters were incorrect.",
"They were unable to provide detailed information about the Moon's surface.",
"They were unable to identify how the Moon's craters were made."
] | The passage supports which of the following statements about the Surveyor and Apollo missions? | The Moon, which has undergone a distinct and complex geological history, presents a striking appearance. The moon may be divided into two major terrains: the Maria (dark lowlands) and the Terrace (bright highlands). The contrast in the reflectivity (the capability of reflecting light) of these two terrains suggested to many early observers that the two terrains might have different compositions, and this supposition was confirmed by missions to the Moon such as Surveyor and Apollo. One of the most obvious differences between the terrains is the smoothness of the Maria in contrast to the roughness of the highlands. This roughness is mostly caused by the abundance of craters: the highlands are completely covered by large craters (greater than 40-50 km in diameter), while the craters of the Maria tend to be much smaller. It is now known that the vast majority of the Moon's craters were formed by the impact of solid bodies with the lunar surface.
Most of the near side of the Moon was thoroughly mapped and studied from telescopic pictures years before the age of space exploration. Earth-based telescopes can resolve objects as small as a few hundred meters on the lunar surface. Close observation of craters, combined with the way the Moon diffusely reflects sunlight, led to the understanding that the Moon is covered by a surface layer, or regolith, that overlies the solid rock of the Moon. Telescopic images permitted the cataloging of a bewildering array of land forms. Craters were studied for clues to their origin; the large wispy marks were seen. Strange, sinuous features were observed in the Maria. Although various land forms were catalogued, the majority of astronomers' attention was fixed on craters and their origins.
Astronomers have known for a fairly long time that the shape of craters changes as they increase in size. Small craters with diameters of less than 10-15 km have relatively simple shapes. They have rim crests that are elevated above the surrounding terrain, smooth, bowl-shaped interiors, and depths that are about one-sixth their diameters. The complexity of shape increases for larger craters. | 411.txt | 0 |
[
"special",
"known",
"varied",
"great"
] | The word "vast" in line 11 is closest in meaning to | The Moon, which has undergone a distinct and complex geological history, presents a striking appearance. The moon may be divided into two major terrains: the Maria (dark lowlands) and the Terrace (bright highlands). The contrast in the reflectivity (the capability of reflecting light) of these two terrains suggested to many early observers that the two terrains might have different compositions, and this supposition was confirmed by missions to the Moon such as Surveyor and Apollo. One of the most obvious differences between the terrains is the smoothness of the Maria in contrast to the roughness of the highlands. This roughness is mostly caused by the abundance of craters: the highlands are completely covered by large craters (greater than 40-50 km in diameter), while the craters of the Maria tend to be much smaller. It is now known that the vast majority of the Moon's craters were formed by the impact of solid bodies with the lunar surface.
Most of the near side of the Moon was thoroughly mapped and studied from telescopic pictures years before the age of space exploration. Earth-based telescopes can resolve objects as small as a few hundred meters on the lunar surface. Close observation of craters, combined with the way the Moon diffusely reflects sunlight, led to the understanding that the Moon is covered by a surface layer, or regolith, that overlies the solid rock of the Moon. Telescopic images permitted the cataloging of a bewildering array of land forms. Craters were studied for clues to their origin; the large wispy marks were seen. Strange, sinuous features were observed in the Maria. Although various land forms were catalogued, the majority of astronomers' attention was fixed on craters and their origins.
Astronomers have known for a fairly long time that the shape of craters changes as they increase in size. Small craters with diameters of less than 10-15 km have relatively simple shapes. They have rim crests that are elevated above the surrounding terrain, smooth, bowl-shaped interiors, and depths that are about one-sixth their diameters. The complexity of shape increases for larger craters. | 411.txt | 3 |
[
"They have small craters.",
"They have been analyzed by astronomers.",
"They have a rough texture.",
"They tend to be darker than the terrace."
] | All of the following are true of the Maria EXCEPT: | The Moon, which has undergone a distinct and complex geological history, presents a striking appearance. The moon may be divided into two major terrains: the Maria (dark lowlands) and the Terrace (bright highlands). The contrast in the reflectivity (the capability of reflecting light) of these two terrains suggested to many early observers that the two terrains might have different compositions, and this supposition was confirmed by missions to the Moon such as Surveyor and Apollo. One of the most obvious differences between the terrains is the smoothness of the Maria in contrast to the roughness of the highlands. This roughness is mostly caused by the abundance of craters: the highlands are completely covered by large craters (greater than 40-50 km in diameter), while the craters of the Maria tend to be much smaller. It is now known that the vast majority of the Moon's craters were formed by the impact of solid bodies with the lunar surface.
Most of the near side of the Moon was thoroughly mapped and studied from telescopic pictures years before the age of space exploration. Earth-based telescopes can resolve objects as small as a few hundred meters on the lunar surface. Close observation of craters, combined with the way the Moon diffusely reflects sunlight, led to the understanding that the Moon is covered by a surface layer, or regolith, that overlies the solid rock of the Moon. Telescopic images permitted the cataloging of a bewildering array of land forms. Craters were studied for clues to their origin; the large wispy marks were seen. Strange, sinuous features were observed in the Maria. Although various land forms were catalogued, the majority of astronomers' attention was fixed on craters and their origins.
Astronomers have known for a fairly long time that the shape of craters changes as they increase in size. Small craters with diameters of less than 10-15 km have relatively simple shapes. They have rim crests that are elevated above the surrounding terrain, smooth, bowl-shaped interiors, and depths that are about one-sixth their diameters. The complexity of shape increases for larger craters. | 411.txt | 2 |
[
"Moon (line 1)",
"reflectivity (line 3)",
"regolith (line 16)",
"Maria (line 2)"
] | All of the following terms are defined in the passage EXCEPT | The Moon, which has undergone a distinct and complex geological history, presents a striking appearance. The moon may be divided into two major terrains: the Maria (dark lowlands) and the Terrace (bright highlands). The contrast in the reflectivity (the capability of reflecting light) of these two terrains suggested to many early observers that the two terrains might have different compositions, and this supposition was confirmed by missions to the Moon such as Surveyor and Apollo. One of the most obvious differences between the terrains is the smoothness of the Maria in contrast to the roughness of the highlands. This roughness is mostly caused by the abundance of craters: the highlands are completely covered by large craters (greater than 40-50 km in diameter), while the craters of the Maria tend to be much smaller. It is now known that the vast majority of the Moon's craters were formed by the impact of solid bodies with the lunar surface.
Most of the near side of the Moon was thoroughly mapped and studied from telescopic pictures years before the age of space exploration. Earth-based telescopes can resolve objects as small as a few hundred meters on the lunar surface. Close observation of craters, combined with the way the Moon diffusely reflects sunlight, led to the understanding that the Moon is covered by a surface layer, or regolith, that overlies the solid rock of the Moon. Telescopic images permitted the cataloging of a bewildering array of land forms. Craters were studied for clues to their origin; the large wispy marks were seen. Strange, sinuous features were observed in the Maria. Although various land forms were catalogued, the majority of astronomers' attention was fixed on craters and their origins.
Astronomers have known for a fairly long time that the shape of craters changes as they increase in size. Small craters with diameters of less than 10-15 km have relatively simple shapes. They have rim crests that are elevated above the surrounding terrain, smooth, bowl-shaped interiors, and depths that are about one-sixth their diameters. The complexity of shape increases for larger craters. | 411.txt | 0 |
[
"an aspect of the lunar surface discovered through lunar missions",
"a characteristic of large craters",
"a discovery made through the use of Earth-based telescopes",
"features that astronomers observed to be common to the Earth and the Moon"
] | The author mentions "wispy marks" in line 19 as an example of | The Moon, which has undergone a distinct and complex geological history, presents a striking appearance. The moon may be divided into two major terrains: the Maria (dark lowlands) and the Terrace (bright highlands). The contrast in the reflectivity (the capability of reflecting light) of these two terrains suggested to many early observers that the two terrains might have different compositions, and this supposition was confirmed by missions to the Moon such as Surveyor and Apollo. One of the most obvious differences between the terrains is the smoothness of the Maria in contrast to the roughness of the highlands. This roughness is mostly caused by the abundance of craters: the highlands are completely covered by large craters (greater than 40-50 km in diameter), while the craters of the Maria tend to be much smaller. It is now known that the vast majority of the Moon's craters were formed by the impact of solid bodies with the lunar surface.
Most of the near side of the Moon was thoroughly mapped and studied from telescopic pictures years before the age of space exploration. Earth-based telescopes can resolve objects as small as a few hundred meters on the lunar surface. Close observation of craters, combined with the way the Moon diffusely reflects sunlight, led to the understanding that the Moon is covered by a surface layer, or regolith, that overlies the solid rock of the Moon. Telescopic images permitted the cataloging of a bewildering array of land forms. Craters were studied for clues to their origin; the large wispy marks were seen. Strange, sinuous features were observed in the Maria. Although various land forms were catalogued, the majority of astronomers' attention was fixed on craters and their origins.
Astronomers have known for a fairly long time that the shape of craters changes as they increase in size. Small craters with diameters of less than 10-15 km have relatively simple shapes. They have rim crests that are elevated above the surrounding terrain, smooth, bowl-shaped interiors, and depths that are about one-sixth their diameters. The complexity of shape increases for larger craters. | 411.txt | 2 |
[
"the possibility of finding water on the Moon",
"the lunar regolith",
"cataloging various land formations",
"craters and their origins"
] | According to the passage , lunar researchers have focused mostly on | The Moon, which has undergone a distinct and complex geological history, presents a striking appearance. The moon may be divided into two major terrains: the Maria (dark lowlands) and the Terrace (bright highlands). The contrast in the reflectivity (the capability of reflecting light) of these two terrains suggested to many early observers that the two terrains might have different compositions, and this supposition was confirmed by missions to the Moon such as Surveyor and Apollo. One of the most obvious differences between the terrains is the smoothness of the Maria in contrast to the roughness of the highlands. This roughness is mostly caused by the abundance of craters: the highlands are completely covered by large craters (greater than 40-50 km in diameter), while the craters of the Maria tend to be much smaller. It is now known that the vast majority of the Moon's craters were formed by the impact of solid bodies with the lunar surface.
Most of the near side of the Moon was thoroughly mapped and studied from telescopic pictures years before the age of space exploration. Earth-based telescopes can resolve objects as small as a few hundred meters on the lunar surface. Close observation of craters, combined with the way the Moon diffusely reflects sunlight, led to the understanding that the Moon is covered by a surface layer, or regolith, that overlies the solid rock of the Moon. Telescopic images permitted the cataloging of a bewildering array of land forms. Craters were studied for clues to their origin; the large wispy marks were seen. Strange, sinuous features were observed in the Maria. Although various land forms were catalogued, the majority of astronomers' attention was fixed on craters and their origins.
Astronomers have known for a fairly long time that the shape of craters changes as they increase in size. Small craters with diameters of less than 10-15 km have relatively simple shapes. They have rim crests that are elevated above the surrounding terrain, smooth, bowl-shaped interiors, and depths that are about one-sixth their diameters. The complexity of shape increases for larger craters. | 411.txt | 3 |
[
"the reasons craters are difficult to study",
"the different shapes small craters can have",
"some features of large craters",
"some difference in the ways small and large craters were formed"
] | The passage probably continues with a discussion of | The Moon, which has undergone a distinct and complex geological history, presents a striking appearance. The moon may be divided into two major terrains: the Maria (dark lowlands) and the Terrace (bright highlands). The contrast in the reflectivity (the capability of reflecting light) of these two terrains suggested to many early observers that the two terrains might have different compositions, and this supposition was confirmed by missions to the Moon such as Surveyor and Apollo. One of the most obvious differences between the terrains is the smoothness of the Maria in contrast to the roughness of the highlands. This roughness is mostly caused by the abundance of craters: the highlands are completely covered by large craters (greater than 40-50 km in diameter), while the craters of the Maria tend to be much smaller. It is now known that the vast majority of the Moon's craters were formed by the impact of solid bodies with the lunar surface.
Most of the near side of the Moon was thoroughly mapped and studied from telescopic pictures years before the age of space exploration. Earth-based telescopes can resolve objects as small as a few hundred meters on the lunar surface. Close observation of craters, combined with the way the Moon diffusely reflects sunlight, led to the understanding that the Moon is covered by a surface layer, or regolith, that overlies the solid rock of the Moon. Telescopic images permitted the cataloging of a bewildering array of land forms. Craters were studied for clues to their origin; the large wispy marks were seen. Strange, sinuous features were observed in the Maria. Although various land forms were catalogued, the majority of astronomers' attention was fixed on craters and their origins.
Astronomers have known for a fairly long time that the shape of craters changes as they increase in size. Small craters with diameters of less than 10-15 km have relatively simple shapes. They have rim crests that are elevated above the surrounding terrain, smooth, bowl-shaped interiors, and depths that are about one-sixth their diameters. The complexity of shape increases for larger craters. | 411.txt | 2 |
[
"show the great achievements of Clark",
"show the richness of Clark",
"show the payback of Clark's brilliant ideas",
"show Clark's desire to get fortunes"
] | The author begins his article with Clark's experience to _ . | Jim Clark, 55, is the first person ever to start three companies that each grew to be worth more than $1 billion-an achievement celebrated in Michael Lewis' best-selling book, The New New Thing. Clark saw in primitive computer graphics chips the potential for powerful new workstations built by Silicon Graphics. He looked at a simple interface for websites, and turned it into the Netscape Web browser. And he most recently has exploited the potential of the Web for dispensing medical information through a company called Healtheon. Each of these ideas has netted Clark a cool billion or so. Shouldn't such a visionary come up with a similarly new way of giving those bucks away?
Well, no. Clark has bestowed his money the old-fashioned way-by attaching his name to a building at Stanford University, his alma mater. His $150 million grant, establishing the Jim C. Clark Center for Biomedical Engineering and Sciences, reflects his belief that just as computer technology has been driving today's economy, biotech will power it over the next 40 years." Some people say you should give where the need is greatest," he says, shrugging. " But that's the job for government. For me, with only a few billion, I have more impact targeting a specific priority."
Clark also wanted to reward Stanford, whose labs he used while engineering the chip for his Silicon Graphics workstations. And this was the sort of philanthropic gesture that would still leave him time to have fun running companies, building yachts and flying helicopters. Clark has a personal insight into why some tech multimillionaires postpone serious charitable giving. At one point in 1998, he watched the value of his Netscape stock erode from $2 billion to $200 million. And other wealthy techies have seen similar wild swings in their personal fortunes. Explains Clark:" When you see your net worth drop like that, you think, ‘If this keeps going, I'm going to have to sell my airplane.'"
Clark is critical of some of his Silicon Valley brethren who haven't been as generous, despite their multibillion-dollar net worth. He hopes his gift will spur other tech billionaires to action, particularly Yahoo founders Jerry Yang and David Filo, who don't discuss specifics of any giving they may have done-and who Clark believes have been too frugal. " These guys actually ran the Yahoo servers out of Stanford," says Clark. " They should be giving something back. These guys are young, but they've got more money than me. Or take Larry Ellison; he should be doing more."
But Clark remains optimistic:" These new-money guys, first they have to get a couple of houses, the plane.
At that point they'll think about: How can I do something more impacting?" | 461.txt | 0 |
[
"should be done in an old way",
"should take the form of generosity",
"should be given in a limited field",
"should involve all rich men"
] | Clark believes that the bestowal of the money _ . | Jim Clark, 55, is the first person ever to start three companies that each grew to be worth more than $1 billion-an achievement celebrated in Michael Lewis' best-selling book, The New New Thing. Clark saw in primitive computer graphics chips the potential for powerful new workstations built by Silicon Graphics. He looked at a simple interface for websites, and turned it into the Netscape Web browser. And he most recently has exploited the potential of the Web for dispensing medical information through a company called Healtheon. Each of these ideas has netted Clark a cool billion or so. Shouldn't such a visionary come up with a similarly new way of giving those bucks away?
Well, no. Clark has bestowed his money the old-fashioned way-by attaching his name to a building at Stanford University, his alma mater. His $150 million grant, establishing the Jim C. Clark Center for Biomedical Engineering and Sciences, reflects his belief that just as computer technology has been driving today's economy, biotech will power it over the next 40 years." Some people say you should give where the need is greatest," he says, shrugging. " But that's the job for government. For me, with only a few billion, I have more impact targeting a specific priority."
Clark also wanted to reward Stanford, whose labs he used while engineering the chip for his Silicon Graphics workstations. And this was the sort of philanthropic gesture that would still leave him time to have fun running companies, building yachts and flying helicopters. Clark has a personal insight into why some tech multimillionaires postpone serious charitable giving. At one point in 1998, he watched the value of his Netscape stock erode from $2 billion to $200 million. And other wealthy techies have seen similar wild swings in their personal fortunes. Explains Clark:" When you see your net worth drop like that, you think, ‘If this keeps going, I'm going to have to sell my airplane.'"
Clark is critical of some of his Silicon Valley brethren who haven't been as generous, despite their multibillion-dollar net worth. He hopes his gift will spur other tech billionaires to action, particularly Yahoo founders Jerry Yang and David Filo, who don't discuss specifics of any giving they may have done-and who Clark believes have been too frugal. " These guys actually ran the Yahoo servers out of Stanford," says Clark. " They should be giving something back. These guys are young, but they've got more money than me. Or take Larry Ellison; he should be doing more."
But Clark remains optimistic:" These new-money guys, first they have to get a couple of houses, the plane.
At that point they'll think about: How can I do something more impacting?" | 461.txt | 1 |
[
"their way of saving money",
"their ungenerosity and less interest in donating",
"Clark's contempt of the new money",
"their difficulty in getting rich"
] | The founders of Yahoo are mentioned to show _ . | Jim Clark, 55, is the first person ever to start three companies that each grew to be worth more than $1 billion-an achievement celebrated in Michael Lewis' best-selling book, The New New Thing. Clark saw in primitive computer graphics chips the potential for powerful new workstations built by Silicon Graphics. He looked at a simple interface for websites, and turned it into the Netscape Web browser. And he most recently has exploited the potential of the Web for dispensing medical information through a company called Healtheon. Each of these ideas has netted Clark a cool billion or so. Shouldn't such a visionary come up with a similarly new way of giving those bucks away?
Well, no. Clark has bestowed his money the old-fashioned way-by attaching his name to a building at Stanford University, his alma mater. His $150 million grant, establishing the Jim C. Clark Center for Biomedical Engineering and Sciences, reflects his belief that just as computer technology has been driving today's economy, biotech will power it over the next 40 years." Some people say you should give where the need is greatest," he says, shrugging. " But that's the job for government. For me, with only a few billion, I have more impact targeting a specific priority."
Clark also wanted to reward Stanford, whose labs he used while engineering the chip for his Silicon Graphics workstations. And this was the sort of philanthropic gesture that would still leave him time to have fun running companies, building yachts and flying helicopters. Clark has a personal insight into why some tech multimillionaires postpone serious charitable giving. At one point in 1998, he watched the value of his Netscape stock erode from $2 billion to $200 million. And other wealthy techies have seen similar wild swings in their personal fortunes. Explains Clark:" When you see your net worth drop like that, you think, ‘If this keeps going, I'm going to have to sell my airplane.'"
Clark is critical of some of his Silicon Valley brethren who haven't been as generous, despite their multibillion-dollar net worth. He hopes his gift will spur other tech billionaires to action, particularly Yahoo founders Jerry Yang and David Filo, who don't discuss specifics of any giving they may have done-and who Clark believes have been too frugal. " These guys actually ran the Yahoo servers out of Stanford," says Clark. " They should be giving something back. These guys are young, but they've got more money than me. Or take Larry Ellison; he should be doing more."
But Clark remains optimistic:" These new-money guys, first they have to get a couple of houses, the plane.
At that point they'll think about: How can I do something more impacting?" | 461.txt | 1 |
[
"strong disapproval",
"reserved consent",
"slight contempt",
"enthusiastic support"
] | Clark's attitude toward his Silicon Valley brethren is of _ . | Jim Clark, 55, is the first person ever to start three companies that each grew to be worth more than $1 billion-an achievement celebrated in Michael Lewis' best-selling book, The New New Thing. Clark saw in primitive computer graphics chips the potential for powerful new workstations built by Silicon Graphics. He looked at a simple interface for websites, and turned it into the Netscape Web browser. And he most recently has exploited the potential of the Web for dispensing medical information through a company called Healtheon. Each of these ideas has netted Clark a cool billion or so. Shouldn't such a visionary come up with a similarly new way of giving those bucks away?
Well, no. Clark has bestowed his money the old-fashioned way-by attaching his name to a building at Stanford University, his alma mater. His $150 million grant, establishing the Jim C. Clark Center for Biomedical Engineering and Sciences, reflects his belief that just as computer technology has been driving today's economy, biotech will power it over the next 40 years." Some people say you should give where the need is greatest," he says, shrugging. " But that's the job for government. For me, with only a few billion, I have more impact targeting a specific priority."
Clark also wanted to reward Stanford, whose labs he used while engineering the chip for his Silicon Graphics workstations. And this was the sort of philanthropic gesture that would still leave him time to have fun running companies, building yachts and flying helicopters. Clark has a personal insight into why some tech multimillionaires postpone serious charitable giving. At one point in 1998, he watched the value of his Netscape stock erode from $2 billion to $200 million. And other wealthy techies have seen similar wild swings in their personal fortunes. Explains Clark:" When you see your net worth drop like that, you think, ‘If this keeps going, I'm going to have to sell my airplane.'"
Clark is critical of some of his Silicon Valley brethren who haven't been as generous, despite their multibillion-dollar net worth. He hopes his gift will spur other tech billionaires to action, particularly Yahoo founders Jerry Yang and David Filo, who don't discuss specifics of any giving they may have done-and who Clark believes have been too frugal. " These guys actually ran the Yahoo servers out of Stanford," says Clark. " They should be giving something back. These guys are young, but they've got more money than me. Or take Larry Ellison; he should be doing more."
But Clark remains optimistic:" These new-money guys, first they have to get a couple of houses, the plane.
At that point they'll think about: How can I do something more impacting?" | 461.txt | 0 |
[
"a Yuppie",
"Clark's competitor",
"a successful techie",
"a young tech billionaire"
] | From the text we learn that Larry Ellison is _ . | Jim Clark, 55, is the first person ever to start three companies that each grew to be worth more than $1 billion-an achievement celebrated in Michael Lewis' best-selling book, The New New Thing. Clark saw in primitive computer graphics chips the potential for powerful new workstations built by Silicon Graphics. He looked at a simple interface for websites, and turned it into the Netscape Web browser. And he most recently has exploited the potential of the Web for dispensing medical information through a company called Healtheon. Each of these ideas has netted Clark a cool billion or so. Shouldn't such a visionary come up with a similarly new way of giving those bucks away?
Well, no. Clark has bestowed his money the old-fashioned way-by attaching his name to a building at Stanford University, his alma mater. His $150 million grant, establishing the Jim C. Clark Center for Biomedical Engineering and Sciences, reflects his belief that just as computer technology has been driving today's economy, biotech will power it over the next 40 years." Some people say you should give where the need is greatest," he says, shrugging. " But that's the job for government. For me, with only a few billion, I have more impact targeting a specific priority."
Clark also wanted to reward Stanford, whose labs he used while engineering the chip for his Silicon Graphics workstations. And this was the sort of philanthropic gesture that would still leave him time to have fun running companies, building yachts and flying helicopters. Clark has a personal insight into why some tech multimillionaires postpone serious charitable giving. At one point in 1998, he watched the value of his Netscape stock erode from $2 billion to $200 million. And other wealthy techies have seen similar wild swings in their personal fortunes. Explains Clark:" When you see your net worth drop like that, you think, ‘If this keeps going, I'm going to have to sell my airplane.'"
Clark is critical of some of his Silicon Valley brethren who haven't been as generous, despite their multibillion-dollar net worth. He hopes his gift will spur other tech billionaires to action, particularly Yahoo founders Jerry Yang and David Filo, who don't discuss specifics of any giving they may have done-and who Clark believes have been too frugal. " These guys actually ran the Yahoo servers out of Stanford," says Clark. " They should be giving something back. These guys are young, but they've got more money than me. Or take Larry Ellison; he should be doing more."
But Clark remains optimistic:" These new-money guys, first they have to get a couple of houses, the plane.
At that point they'll think about: How can I do something more impacting?" | 461.txt | 3 |
[
"how much money they can earn from their products",
"whether to plant a certain kind of crop",
"what livestock to raise",
"when to sell their products"
] | According to the passage, computers can not help farmers decide _ . | Today just as technology changed the face of industry, farms have experienced an "agricultural revolution". On the farm of today, machines provide almost all the power.
One of the most important benefits will be the farm computer. A few forward-looking farmers are already using computers to help them run their farms more efficiently. The computers help them keep more accurate records so they can make better decisions on what crops to plant, how much livestock to buy, when to sell their products, and how much profit they can expect. Many computer companies have been developing special computer programs just for farmers. Programs are being written for pig producers, grain farmers, potato farmers, and dairy farmers. In the future, farmers will be able to purchase computer programs made to their needs. Because of the growing importance of computers on the farm, students at agricultural colleges are required to take computer classes in addition to their normal agricultural courses. There can be no doubt that farmers will rely on computers even more in the future. While the old-time farm depended on horse power, and modern farms depend on machine power, farms of the future will depend on computer power.
Another technological advance which is still in the experimental stage is the robot, a real "mechanized hired hand" that will be able to move and, in some ways, think like a human being. Agricultural engineers believe that computer-aided robots will make shocking changes in farming before the end of the century. Unlike farmers of the present, farmers of the future will find that many day-to-day tasks will be done for them. Scientists are now developing robots that will be able to shear sheep, drive tractors, and harvest fruit. Even complex jobs will be done by robots. For example, in order to milk their cows, farmers must first drive them into the barn, then connect them to the milking machines, watch the machines, and disconnect them when they are finished. In the future, this will all be done by robots. In addition, when the milking is completed, the robots will automatically check to make sure that the milk is pure. The complete change of the farm is far in the future, but engineers expect that some robots will be used before long. | 3139.txt | 2 |
[
"Farmers in the future will depend totally on computers.",
"Farmers mainly use machines on their farms at present.",
"Both computers and robots have been in use on today's farms.",
"Students at agricultural colleges needn't take their normal agricultural courses."
] | Which of the following statements is true? | Today just as technology changed the face of industry, farms have experienced an "agricultural revolution". On the farm of today, machines provide almost all the power.
One of the most important benefits will be the farm computer. A few forward-looking farmers are already using computers to help them run their farms more efficiently. The computers help them keep more accurate records so they can make better decisions on what crops to plant, how much livestock to buy, when to sell their products, and how much profit they can expect. Many computer companies have been developing special computer programs just for farmers. Programs are being written for pig producers, grain farmers, potato farmers, and dairy farmers. In the future, farmers will be able to purchase computer programs made to their needs. Because of the growing importance of computers on the farm, students at agricultural colleges are required to take computer classes in addition to their normal agricultural courses. There can be no doubt that farmers will rely on computers even more in the future. While the old-time farm depended on horse power, and modern farms depend on machine power, farms of the future will depend on computer power.
Another technological advance which is still in the experimental stage is the robot, a real "mechanized hired hand" that will be able to move and, in some ways, think like a human being. Agricultural engineers believe that computer-aided robots will make shocking changes in farming before the end of the century. Unlike farmers of the present, farmers of the future will find that many day-to-day tasks will be done for them. Scientists are now developing robots that will be able to shear sheep, drive tractors, and harvest fruit. Even complex jobs will be done by robots. For example, in order to milk their cows, farmers must first drive them into the barn, then connect them to the milking machines, watch the machines, and disconnect them when they are finished. In the future, this will all be done by robots. In addition, when the milking is completed, the robots will automatically check to make sure that the milk is pure. The complete change of the farm is far in the future, but engineers expect that some robots will be used before long. | 3139.txt | 1 |
[
"Computer, Farmers' Best Friend",
"Farmers in The Future",
"The Agricultural Revolution",
"Computers and Robots"
] | What is the best title for the whole passage? | Today just as technology changed the face of industry, farms have experienced an "agricultural revolution". On the farm of today, machines provide almost all the power.
One of the most important benefits will be the farm computer. A few forward-looking farmers are already using computers to help them run their farms more efficiently. The computers help them keep more accurate records so they can make better decisions on what crops to plant, how much livestock to buy, when to sell their products, and how much profit they can expect. Many computer companies have been developing special computer programs just for farmers. Programs are being written for pig producers, grain farmers, potato farmers, and dairy farmers. In the future, farmers will be able to purchase computer programs made to their needs. Because of the growing importance of computers on the farm, students at agricultural colleges are required to take computer classes in addition to their normal agricultural courses. There can be no doubt that farmers will rely on computers even more in the future. While the old-time farm depended on horse power, and modern farms depend on machine power, farms of the future will depend on computer power.
Another technological advance which is still in the experimental stage is the robot, a real "mechanized hired hand" that will be able to move and, in some ways, think like a human being. Agricultural engineers believe that computer-aided robots will make shocking changes in farming before the end of the century. Unlike farmers of the present, farmers of the future will find that many day-to-day tasks will be done for them. Scientists are now developing robots that will be able to shear sheep, drive tractors, and harvest fruit. Even complex jobs will be done by robots. For example, in order to milk their cows, farmers must first drive them into the barn, then connect them to the milking machines, watch the machines, and disconnect them when they are finished. In the future, this will all be done by robots. In addition, when the milking is completed, the robots will automatically check to make sure that the milk is pure. The complete change of the farm is far in the future, but engineers expect that some robots will be used before long. | 3139.txt | 2 |
[
"Their lives are brief.",
"They feed on plant and animal organisms.",
"Their eggs can survive years of drought.",
"They lay their eggs in the mud."
] | Which of the following is the MOST distinctive feature of Mojave shrimps? | There are desert plants which survive the dry season in the form of inactive seeds. There are also desert insects which survive as inactive larvae . In addition, difficult as it is to believe, there are desert fish which can survive through years of drought in the form of inactive eggs. These are the shrimps that live in the Mojave Desert, an intensely dry region in the south-west of the United States where shade temperatures of over 50C are often recorded.
The eggs of the Mojave shrimps are the size and have the appearance of grains of sand. When sufficient spring rain falls to form a lake, once every two to five years, these eggs hatch . Then the water is soon filled with millions of tiny shrimps about a millimetre long which feed on tiny plant and animal organisms which also grow in the temporary desert lake. Within a week, the shrimps grow from their original 1 millimetre to a length of about 1.5 centimetres.
Throughout the time that the shrimps are rapidly maturing, the water in the lake equally rapidly evaporates. Therefore, for the shrimps it is a race against time. By the twelfth day, however, when they are about 3 centimetre long, hundreds of tiny eggs form on the underbodies of the females. Usually by this time, all that remains of the lake is a large, muddy patch of wet soil. On the thirteenth day and the next, during the final hours of their brief lives, the shrimps lay their eggs in the mud. Then, having ensured that their species will survive, the shrimps die as the last of the water evaporates.
If sufficient rain falls the next year to form another lake, the eggs hatch, and once again the shrimps pass rapidly through their cycle of growth, adulthood, egg-laying, and death. Some years there is insufficient rain to form a lake: in this case, the eggs will remain dormant for another years, or even longer if necessary. Very, very occasionally, perhaps twice in a hundred years, sufficient rain falls to form a deep lake that lasts a month or more. In this case, the species passes through two cycles of growth, egg-laying, and death. Thus, on such occasions, the species multiplies considerably, which further ensures its survival. | 1828.txt | 2 |
[
"they have to swim fast to avoid danger in the rapidly evaporating lake",
"they have to swim fast to catch the animal organisms on which they survive",
"they have to multiply as many as possible within thirteen days",
"they have to complete their life cycle within a short span of time permitted by the environment"
] | By saying "for the shrimps it is a race against time" (Para. 3, line 2) the author means ________. | There are desert plants which survive the dry season in the form of inactive seeds. There are also desert insects which survive as inactive larvae . In addition, difficult as it is to believe, there are desert fish which can survive through years of drought in the form of inactive eggs. These are the shrimps that live in the Mojave Desert, an intensely dry region in the south-west of the United States where shade temperatures of over 50C are often recorded.
The eggs of the Mojave shrimps are the size and have the appearance of grains of sand. When sufficient spring rain falls to form a lake, once every two to five years, these eggs hatch . Then the water is soon filled with millions of tiny shrimps about a millimetre long which feed on tiny plant and animal organisms which also grow in the temporary desert lake. Within a week, the shrimps grow from their original 1 millimetre to a length of about 1.5 centimetres.
Throughout the time that the shrimps are rapidly maturing, the water in the lake equally rapidly evaporates. Therefore, for the shrimps it is a race against time. By the twelfth day, however, when they are about 3 centimetre long, hundreds of tiny eggs form on the underbodies of the females. Usually by this time, all that remains of the lake is a large, muddy patch of wet soil. On the thirteenth day and the next, during the final hours of their brief lives, the shrimps lay their eggs in the mud. Then, having ensured that their species will survive, the shrimps die as the last of the water evaporates.
If sufficient rain falls the next year to form another lake, the eggs hatch, and once again the shrimps pass rapidly through their cycle of growth, adulthood, egg-laying, and death. Some years there is insufficient rain to form a lake: in this case, the eggs will remain dormant for another years, or even longer if necessary. Very, very occasionally, perhaps twice in a hundred years, sufficient rain falls to form a deep lake that lasts a month or more. In this case, the species passes through two cycles of growth, egg-laying, and death. Thus, on such occasions, the species multiplies considerably, which further ensures its survival. | 1828.txt | 3 |
[
"the life span of the Mojave shrimps",
"the survival of desert shrimps",
"the importance of water to life",
"life in the Mojave Desert"
] | The passage mainly deals with ________. | There are desert plants which survive the dry season in the form of inactive seeds. There are also desert insects which survive as inactive larvae . In addition, difficult as it is to believe, there are desert fish which can survive through years of drought in the form of inactive eggs. These are the shrimps that live in the Mojave Desert, an intensely dry region in the south-west of the United States where shade temperatures of over 50C are often recorded.
The eggs of the Mojave shrimps are the size and have the appearance of grains of sand. When sufficient spring rain falls to form a lake, once every two to five years, these eggs hatch . Then the water is soon filled with millions of tiny shrimps about a millimetre long which feed on tiny plant and animal organisms which also grow in the temporary desert lake. Within a week, the shrimps grow from their original 1 millimetre to a length of about 1.5 centimetres.
Throughout the time that the shrimps are rapidly maturing, the water in the lake equally rapidly evaporates. Therefore, for the shrimps it is a race against time. By the twelfth day, however, when they are about 3 centimetre long, hundreds of tiny eggs form on the underbodies of the females. Usually by this time, all that remains of the lake is a large, muddy patch of wet soil. On the thirteenth day and the next, during the final hours of their brief lives, the shrimps lay their eggs in the mud. Then, having ensured that their species will survive, the shrimps die as the last of the water evaporates.
If sufficient rain falls the next year to form another lake, the eggs hatch, and once again the shrimps pass rapidly through their cycle of growth, adulthood, egg-laying, and death. Some years there is insufficient rain to form a lake: in this case, the eggs will remain dormant for another years, or even longer if necessary. Very, very occasionally, perhaps twice in a hundred years, sufficient rain falls to form a deep lake that lasts a month or more. In this case, the species passes through two cycles of growth, egg-laying, and death. Thus, on such occasions, the species multiplies considerably, which further ensures its survival. | 1828.txt | 1 |
[
"inactive",
"strong",
"alert",
"soft"
] | The word "dormant" (Para. 4, Line 3) most probably means ________. | There are desert plants which survive the dry season in the form of inactive seeds. There are also desert insects which survive as inactive larvae . In addition, difficult as it is to believe, there are desert fish which can survive through years of drought in the form of inactive eggs. These are the shrimps that live in the Mojave Desert, an intensely dry region in the south-west of the United States where shade temperatures of over 50C are often recorded.
The eggs of the Mojave shrimps are the size and have the appearance of grains of sand. When sufficient spring rain falls to form a lake, once every two to five years, these eggs hatch . Then the water is soon filled with millions of tiny shrimps about a millimetre long which feed on tiny plant and animal organisms which also grow in the temporary desert lake. Within a week, the shrimps grow from their original 1 millimetre to a length of about 1.5 centimetres.
Throughout the time that the shrimps are rapidly maturing, the water in the lake equally rapidly evaporates. Therefore, for the shrimps it is a race against time. By the twelfth day, however, when they are about 3 centimetre long, hundreds of tiny eggs form on the underbodies of the females. Usually by this time, all that remains of the lake is a large, muddy patch of wet soil. On the thirteenth day and the next, during the final hours of their brief lives, the shrimps lay their eggs in the mud. Then, having ensured that their species will survive, the shrimps die as the last of the water evaporates.
If sufficient rain falls the next year to form another lake, the eggs hatch, and once again the shrimps pass rapidly through their cycle of growth, adulthood, egg-laying, and death. Some years there is insufficient rain to form a lake: in this case, the eggs will remain dormant for another years, or even longer if necessary. Very, very occasionally, perhaps twice in a hundred years, sufficient rain falls to form a deep lake that lasts a month or more. In this case, the species passes through two cycles of growth, egg-laying, and death. Thus, on such occasions, the species multiplies considerably, which further ensures its survival. | 1828.txt | 0 |
[
"appearance and size are most important for life to survive in the desert",
"a species must be able to multiply quickly in order to survive",
"for some species one life cycle in a year is enough to survive the desert drought",
"some species develop a unique life pattern to survive in extremely harsh conditions"
] | It may be inferred from the passage that ________. | There are desert plants which survive the dry season in the form of inactive seeds. There are also desert insects which survive as inactive larvae . In addition, difficult as it is to believe, there are desert fish which can survive through years of drought in the form of inactive eggs. These are the shrimps that live in the Mojave Desert, an intensely dry region in the south-west of the United States where shade temperatures of over 50C are often recorded.
The eggs of the Mojave shrimps are the size and have the appearance of grains of sand. When sufficient spring rain falls to form a lake, once every two to five years, these eggs hatch . Then the water is soon filled with millions of tiny shrimps about a millimetre long which feed on tiny plant and animal organisms which also grow in the temporary desert lake. Within a week, the shrimps grow from their original 1 millimetre to a length of about 1.5 centimetres.
Throughout the time that the shrimps are rapidly maturing, the water in the lake equally rapidly evaporates. Therefore, for the shrimps it is a race against time. By the twelfth day, however, when they are about 3 centimetre long, hundreds of tiny eggs form on the underbodies of the females. Usually by this time, all that remains of the lake is a large, muddy patch of wet soil. On the thirteenth day and the next, during the final hours of their brief lives, the shrimps lay their eggs in the mud. Then, having ensured that their species will survive, the shrimps die as the last of the water evaporates.
If sufficient rain falls the next year to form another lake, the eggs hatch, and once again the shrimps pass rapidly through their cycle of growth, adulthood, egg-laying, and death. Some years there is insufficient rain to form a lake: in this case, the eggs will remain dormant for another years, or even longer if necessary. Very, very occasionally, perhaps twice in a hundred years, sufficient rain falls to form a deep lake that lasts a month or more. In this case, the species passes through two cycles of growth, egg-laying, and death. Thus, on such occasions, the species multiplies considerably, which further ensures its survival. | 1828.txt | 3 |
[
"People enjoy it all the more during a recession",
"Few people can afford it without working hard",
"It makes all the hard work worthwhile",
"It is the chief cause of family disputes"
] | What does the author say about vacationing? | It's an annual argument. Do we or do we not go on holiday? My partner says no because the boiler could go, or the roof fall off, and we have no savings to save us. I say that you only live once and we work hard and what's the point if you can't go on holiday. The joy of a recession means no argument next year - we just won't go.
Since money is known to be one of the things most likely to bring a relationship to its knees, we should be grateful. For many families the recession means more than not booking a holiday. A YouGov poll of 2,000 people found 22% said they were arguing more with their partners because of concerns about money. What's less clear is whether divorce and separation rates rise in a recession - financial pressures mean couples argue more but make splitting up less affordable. A recent research shows arguments about money were especially damaging to couples. Disputes were characterized by intense verbal aggression, tended to be repeated and not resolved, and made men, more than women, extremely angry.
Kim Stephenson, an occupational psychologist, believes money is such a big deal because of what it symbolizes, which may be different things to men and women. "People can say the same things about money but have different conceptions of what it is for," he explains. "They will say it's to save, to spend, for security, for freedom, to show someone you love them" He says men are more likely to see money as a way of buying status and of showing their parents that they've achieved something.
"The biggest problem is that couples assume each other knows what is going on with their finances, but they don't. There seems to be more of a taboo about talking about money than talking about death. But you both need to know what you are doing, who is paying what into the joint account and how much you keep separately. In a healthy relationship you don't have to agree about money, but you have to talk about it." | 2050.txt | 2 |
[
"Money is considered to be the root of all evils",
"Some people sacrifice their dignity for money",
"Few people can resist the temptation of money",
"Disputes over money may ruin a relationship"
] | What does the author mean by saying "money is known… to bring a relationship to its knees" (Line1 Para. 2)？ | It's an annual argument. Do we or do we not go on holiday? My partner says no because the boiler could go, or the roof fall off, and we have no savings to save us. I say that you only live once and we work hard and what's the point if you can't go on holiday. The joy of a recession means no argument next year - we just won't go.
Since money is known to be one of the things most likely to bring a relationship to its knees, we should be grateful. For many families the recession means more than not booking a holiday. A YouGov poll of 2,000 people found 22% said they were arguing more with their partners because of concerns about money. What's less clear is whether divorce and separation rates rise in a recession - financial pressures mean couples argue more but make splitting up less affordable. A recent research shows arguments about money were especially damaging to couples. Disputes were characterized by intense verbal aggression, tended to be repeated and not resolved, and made men, more than women, extremely angry.
Kim Stephenson, an occupational psychologist, believes money is such a big deal because of what it symbolizes, which may be different things to men and women. "People can say the same things about money but have different conceptions of what it is for," he explains. "They will say it's to save, to spend, for security, for freedom, to show someone you love them" He says men are more likely to see money as a way of buying status and of showing their parents that they've achieved something.
"The biggest problem is that couples assume each other knows what is going on with their finances, but they don't. There seems to be more of a taboo about talking about money than talking about death. But you both need to know what you are doing, who is paying what into the joint account and how much you keep separately. In a healthy relationship you don't have to agree about money, but you have to talk about it." | 2050.txt | 3 |
[
"conflicts between couples tend to rise",
"it is more expensive for couples to split up",
"couples show more concern for each other",
"divorce and separation rates increase"
] | The YouGov poll of 2000 people indicates that in a recession _ . | It's an annual argument. Do we or do we not go on holiday? My partner says no because the boiler could go, or the roof fall off, and we have no savings to save us. I say that you only live once and we work hard and what's the point if you can't go on holiday. The joy of a recession means no argument next year - we just won't go.
Since money is known to be one of the things most likely to bring a relationship to its knees, we should be grateful. For many families the recession means more than not booking a holiday. A YouGov poll of 2,000 people found 22% said they were arguing more with their partners because of concerns about money. What's less clear is whether divorce and separation rates rise in a recession - financial pressures mean couples argue more but make splitting up less affordable. A recent research shows arguments about money were especially damaging to couples. Disputes were characterized by intense verbal aggression, tended to be repeated and not resolved, and made men, more than women, extremely angry.
Kim Stephenson, an occupational psychologist, believes money is such a big deal because of what it symbolizes, which may be different things to men and women. "People can say the same things about money but have different conceptions of what it is for," he explains. "They will say it's to save, to spend, for security, for freedom, to show someone you love them" He says men are more likely to see money as a way of buying status and of showing their parents that they've achieved something.
"The biggest problem is that couples assume each other knows what is going on with their finances, but they don't. There seems to be more of a taboo about talking about money than talking about death. But you both need to know what you are doing, who is paying what into the joint account and how much you keep separately. In a healthy relationship you don't have to agree about money, but you have to talk about it." | 2050.txt | 0 |
[
"Money is often a symbol of a person's status",
"Money means a great deal to both men and women",
"Men and women spend money on different things",
"Men and women view money in different ways"
] | What does Kim Stephenson believe? | It's an annual argument. Do we or do we not go on holiday? My partner says no because the boiler could go, or the roof fall off, and we have no savings to save us. I say that you only live once and we work hard and what's the point if you can't go on holiday. The joy of a recession means no argument next year - we just won't go.
Since money is known to be one of the things most likely to bring a relationship to its knees, we should be grateful. For many families the recession means more than not booking a holiday. A YouGov poll of 2,000 people found 22% said they were arguing more with their partners because of concerns about money. What's less clear is whether divorce and separation rates rise in a recession - financial pressures mean couples argue more but make splitting up less affordable. A recent research shows arguments about money were especially damaging to couples. Disputes were characterized by intense verbal aggression, tended to be repeated and not resolved, and made men, more than women, extremely angry.
Kim Stephenson, an occupational psychologist, believes money is such a big deal because of what it symbolizes, which may be different things to men and women. "People can say the same things about money but have different conceptions of what it is for," he explains. "They will say it's to save, to spend, for security, for freedom, to show someone you love them" He says men are more likely to see money as a way of buying status and of showing their parents that they've achieved something.
"The biggest problem is that couples assume each other knows what is going on with their finances, but they don't. There seems to be more of a taboo about talking about money than talking about death. But you both need to know what you are doing, who is paying what into the joint account and how much you keep separately. In a healthy relationship you don't have to agree about money, but you have to talk about it." | 2050.txt | 3 |
[
"put their money together instead of keeping it separately",
"make efforts to reach agreement on their family budgets",
"discuss money matters to maintain a healthy relationship",
"avoid arguing about money matters to remain romantic"
] | The author suggests at the end of the passage that couples should _ | It's an annual argument. Do we or do we not go on holiday? My partner says no because the boiler could go, or the roof fall off, and we have no savings to save us. I say that you only live once and we work hard and what's the point if you can't go on holiday. The joy of a recession means no argument next year - we just won't go.
Since money is known to be one of the things most likely to bring a relationship to its knees, we should be grateful. For many families the recession means more than not booking a holiday. A YouGov poll of 2,000 people found 22% said they were arguing more with their partners because of concerns about money. What's less clear is whether divorce and separation rates rise in a recession - financial pressures mean couples argue more but make splitting up less affordable. A recent research shows arguments about money were especially damaging to couples. Disputes were characterized by intense verbal aggression, tended to be repeated and not resolved, and made men, more than women, extremely angry.
Kim Stephenson, an occupational psychologist, believes money is such a big deal because of what it symbolizes, which may be different things to men and women. "People can say the same things about money but have different conceptions of what it is for," he explains. "They will say it's to save, to spend, for security, for freedom, to show someone you love them" He says men are more likely to see money as a way of buying status and of showing their parents that they've achieved something.
"The biggest problem is that couples assume each other knows what is going on with their finances, but they don't. There seems to be more of a taboo about talking about money than talking about death. But you both need to know what you are doing, who is paying what into the joint account and how much you keep separately. In a healthy relationship you don't have to agree about money, but you have to talk about it." | 2050.txt | 2 |
[
"The Earth's axis does not exist in reality.",
"The Earth's axis is tilted about 23.5 degrees.",
"The earth's axis is east-west.",
"The tilt of the Earth causes seasons to take place."
] | Which of the following statements is NOT true? | The Earth's axis is an imaginary line that runs through the middle of the Earth from the North Pole to the South Pole. The axis of the earth is tilted about 23.5 degrees. This tilt of the earth results in our seasons.
In June, the Northern Hemisphere is tilted toward the sun, so the people in the Northern Hemisphere have longer and warmer days. The days are shorter and colder in the Southern Hemisphere in June, because the Earth is tilted away from the sun. The days start getting shorter in the Northern Hemisphere and longer in the Southern Hemisphere after about June 21. This is the first day of summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the first day of winter in the southern hemisphere. Daytime lasts exactly as long as nighttime on the first day of autumn (about September 21) and the first day of spring (about March 21). The first day of winter in the Northern Hemisphere, usually December 21, is the shortest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere and the longest day of the year in the Southern Hemisphere.
The days are longer in summer and shorter in winter the further you move from the equator. It's generally dark on a summer night in Florida by 8:30 p.m., but in Vermont, there will still be some light at 10:00 p.m. The situation is reversed in winter, where the sun will go down in Vermont by 3:45 p.m. while there remains light in Florida until 5:15 p.m.
Northern Alaska is called the "Land of the Midnight Sun" because it never gets dark during the summer months. That part of the Earth is facing the sun all day and all night. Antarctica never sees daylight during those months. The situation is reversed in December and January when northern Alaska never sees the sun while it continues to light the sky at night in Antarctica. | 1017.txt | 2 |
[
"the Southern Hemisphere is tilted away from the sun in June",
"June 21 is the longest day of a year in the Southern Hemisphere",
"December 21 is the coldest day of a year in the Northern Hemisphere",
"there is only one day in a year when daytime lasts exactly as long as nighttime"
] | According to the second paragraph, we can know that . | The Earth's axis is an imaginary line that runs through the middle of the Earth from the North Pole to the South Pole. The axis of the earth is tilted about 23.5 degrees. This tilt of the earth results in our seasons.
In June, the Northern Hemisphere is tilted toward the sun, so the people in the Northern Hemisphere have longer and warmer days. The days are shorter and colder in the Southern Hemisphere in June, because the Earth is tilted away from the sun. The days start getting shorter in the Northern Hemisphere and longer in the Southern Hemisphere after about June 21. This is the first day of summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the first day of winter in the southern hemisphere. Daytime lasts exactly as long as nighttime on the first day of autumn (about September 21) and the first day of spring (about March 21). The first day of winter in the Northern Hemisphere, usually December 21, is the shortest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere and the longest day of the year in the Southern Hemisphere.
The days are longer in summer and shorter in winter the further you move from the equator. It's generally dark on a summer night in Florida by 8:30 p.m., but in Vermont, there will still be some light at 10:00 p.m. The situation is reversed in winter, where the sun will go down in Vermont by 3:45 p.m. while there remains light in Florida until 5:15 p.m.
Northern Alaska is called the "Land of the Midnight Sun" because it never gets dark during the summer months. That part of the Earth is facing the sun all day and all night. Antarctica never sees daylight during those months. The situation is reversed in December and January when northern Alaska never sees the sun while it continues to light the sky at night in Antarctica. | 1017.txt | 0 |
[
"in the Northern Hemisphere, the more northern, the longer daytime in summer",
"in the Southern Hemisphere, the more northern, the shorter daytime in winter",
"Florida is further to the equator than Vermont",
"In China, Changchun's daytime in winter is longer than that of Guangzhou"
] | According to the passage, we can infer that . | The Earth's axis is an imaginary line that runs through the middle of the Earth from the North Pole to the South Pole. The axis of the earth is tilted about 23.5 degrees. This tilt of the earth results in our seasons.
In June, the Northern Hemisphere is tilted toward the sun, so the people in the Northern Hemisphere have longer and warmer days. The days are shorter and colder in the Southern Hemisphere in June, because the Earth is tilted away from the sun. The days start getting shorter in the Northern Hemisphere and longer in the Southern Hemisphere after about June 21. This is the first day of summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the first day of winter in the southern hemisphere. Daytime lasts exactly as long as nighttime on the first day of autumn (about September 21) and the first day of spring (about March 21). The first day of winter in the Northern Hemisphere, usually December 21, is the shortest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere and the longest day of the year in the Southern Hemisphere.
The days are longer in summer and shorter in winter the further you move from the equator. It's generally dark on a summer night in Florida by 8:30 p.m., but in Vermont, there will still be some light at 10:00 p.m. The situation is reversed in winter, where the sun will go down in Vermont by 3:45 p.m. while there remains light in Florida until 5:15 p.m.
Northern Alaska is called the "Land of the Midnight Sun" because it never gets dark during the summer months. That part of the Earth is facing the sun all day and all night. Antarctica never sees daylight during those months. The situation is reversed in December and January when northern Alaska never sees the sun while it continues to light the sky at night in Antarctica. | 1017.txt | 0 |
[
"it is always daytime during the summer months",
"it is located in the center of the Earth",
"it is located on the equator of the Earth",
"only at midnight can people there see the sun"
] | Northern Alaska gets the name "Land of the Midnight Sun" because _ . | The Earth's axis is an imaginary line that runs through the middle of the Earth from the North Pole to the South Pole. The axis of the earth is tilted about 23.5 degrees. This tilt of the earth results in our seasons.
In June, the Northern Hemisphere is tilted toward the sun, so the people in the Northern Hemisphere have longer and warmer days. The days are shorter and colder in the Southern Hemisphere in June, because the Earth is tilted away from the sun. The days start getting shorter in the Northern Hemisphere and longer in the Southern Hemisphere after about June 21. This is the first day of summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the first day of winter in the southern hemisphere. Daytime lasts exactly as long as nighttime on the first day of autumn (about September 21) and the first day of spring (about March 21). The first day of winter in the Northern Hemisphere, usually December 21, is the shortest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere and the longest day of the year in the Southern Hemisphere.
The days are longer in summer and shorter in winter the further you move from the equator. It's generally dark on a summer night in Florida by 8:30 p.m., but in Vermont, there will still be some light at 10:00 p.m. The situation is reversed in winter, where the sun will go down in Vermont by 3:45 p.m. while there remains light in Florida until 5:15 p.m.
Northern Alaska is called the "Land of the Midnight Sun" because it never gets dark during the summer months. That part of the Earth is facing the sun all day and all night. Antarctica never sees daylight during those months. The situation is reversed in December and January when northern Alaska never sees the sun while it continues to light the sky at night in Antarctica. | 1017.txt | 0 |
[
"December",
"January",
"February",
"June"
] | If we want to make science research in Antarctica, we may choose the following months EXCEPT _ . | The Earth's axis is an imaginary line that runs through the middle of the Earth from the North Pole to the South Pole. The axis of the earth is tilted about 23.5 degrees. This tilt of the earth results in our seasons.
In June, the Northern Hemisphere is tilted toward the sun, so the people in the Northern Hemisphere have longer and warmer days. The days are shorter and colder in the Southern Hemisphere in June, because the Earth is tilted away from the sun. The days start getting shorter in the Northern Hemisphere and longer in the Southern Hemisphere after about June 21. This is the first day of summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the first day of winter in the southern hemisphere. Daytime lasts exactly as long as nighttime on the first day of autumn (about September 21) and the first day of spring (about March 21). The first day of winter in the Northern Hemisphere, usually December 21, is the shortest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere and the longest day of the year in the Southern Hemisphere.
The days are longer in summer and shorter in winter the further you move from the equator. It's generally dark on a summer night in Florida by 8:30 p.m., but in Vermont, there will still be some light at 10:00 p.m. The situation is reversed in winter, where the sun will go down in Vermont by 3:45 p.m. while there remains light in Florida until 5:15 p.m.
Northern Alaska is called the "Land of the Midnight Sun" because it never gets dark during the summer months. That part of the Earth is facing the sun all day and all night. Antarctica never sees daylight during those months. The situation is reversed in December and January when northern Alaska never sees the sun while it continues to light the sky at night in Antarctica. | 1017.txt | 3 |
[
"Season and space",
"The change of daytime",
"Land of the Midnight Sun",
"Northern and Southern Hemisphere"
] | What might be the most suitable title for the text? | The Earth's axis is an imaginary line that runs through the middle of the Earth from the North Pole to the South Pole. The axis of the earth is tilted about 23.5 degrees. This tilt of the earth results in our seasons.
In June, the Northern Hemisphere is tilted toward the sun, so the people in the Northern Hemisphere have longer and warmer days. The days are shorter and colder in the Southern Hemisphere in June, because the Earth is tilted away from the sun. The days start getting shorter in the Northern Hemisphere and longer in the Southern Hemisphere after about June 21. This is the first day of summer in the Northern Hemisphere and the first day of winter in the southern hemisphere. Daytime lasts exactly as long as nighttime on the first day of autumn (about September 21) and the first day of spring (about March 21). The first day of winter in the Northern Hemisphere, usually December 21, is the shortest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere and the longest day of the year in the Southern Hemisphere.
The days are longer in summer and shorter in winter the further you move from the equator. It's generally dark on a summer night in Florida by 8:30 p.m., but in Vermont, there will still be some light at 10:00 p.m. The situation is reversed in winter, where the sun will go down in Vermont by 3:45 p.m. while there remains light in Florida until 5:15 p.m.
Northern Alaska is called the "Land of the Midnight Sun" because it never gets dark during the summer months. That part of the Earth is facing the sun all day and all night. Antarctica never sees daylight during those months. The situation is reversed in December and January when northern Alaska never sees the sun while it continues to light the sky at night in Antarctica. | 1017.txt | 0 |
[
"these companies had not enough money to buy such expensive computers",
"these computers could not do the work that small computers can do today",
"these computers did not come onto the market",
"these companies did not need to use this new technology"
] | Ten years ago, smaller companies did not use large computers because _ . | Without most people realizing it, there has been a revolution in office work over the last ten years. Before that time, large computers were only used by large, rich companies that could afford the investment. With the advancement of technology, small computers have come onto the market which are capable of doing the work which used to be done by much larger and more expensive computers, so now most smaller companies can use them.
The main development in small computers has been in the field of word processors, or WP's as they are often called. 40% of British offices are now estimated to have a word processor for both secretary and manager. The secretary is freed from a lot of routine work, such as re-typing letters and storing papers. He or she can use this time to do other more interesting work for the boss. From a manager's point of view, secretarial time is being made better use of and money can be saved by doing routine jobs automatically outside office hours.
But is it all good? If a lot of routine secretarial work can be done automati-cally , surely this will mean that fewer secretaries will be needed. Another worry is the increasing medical problems related to work with visual display units. The case of a slow loss of sight among people using word processors seems to have risen greatly. It is also feared that if a woman works at a VDU for long hours, the unborn child in her body might be killed. Safety screens to put over a VDU have been invented but few companies in England bother to buy them.
Whatever the arguments for or against word processors, they are a key feature of this revolution in office practice. | 756.txt | 0 |
[
"the saving of time and money",
"the use of computers in small companies",
"the wide use of word processors",
"the decreasing number of secretaries"
] | According to the writer, the main feature of the revolution in office work over the last ten years is _ . | Without most people realizing it, there has been a revolution in office work over the last ten years. Before that time, large computers were only used by large, rich companies that could afford the investment. With the advancement of technology, small computers have come onto the market which are capable of doing the work which used to be done by much larger and more expensive computers, so now most smaller companies can use them.
The main development in small computers has been in the field of word processors, or WP's as they are often called. 40% of British offices are now estimated to have a word processor for both secretary and manager. The secretary is freed from a lot of routine work, such as re-typing letters and storing papers. He or she can use this time to do other more interesting work for the boss. From a manager's point of view, secretarial time is being made better use of and money can be saved by doing routine jobs automatically outside office hours.
But is it all good? If a lot of routine secretarial work can be done automati-cally , surely this will mean that fewer secretaries will be needed. Another worry is the increasing medical problems related to work with visual display units. The case of a slow loss of sight among people using word processors seems to have risen greatly. It is also feared that if a woman works at a VDU for long hours, the unborn child in her body might be killed. Safety screens to put over a VDU have been invented but few companies in England bother to buy them.
Whatever the arguments for or against word processors, they are a key feature of this revolution in office practice. | 756.txt | 2 |
[
"some secretaries will lose their jobs",
"routine jobs can be done automatically outside office hours",
"medical problems related to work with a VDU have increased",
"using word processors, secretaries can get more time to do more interesting work for their bosses"
] | It is implied but NOT directly stated in the passage that with the use of word processors _ . | Without most people realizing it, there has been a revolution in office work over the last ten years. Before that time, large computers were only used by large, rich companies that could afford the investment. With the advancement of technology, small computers have come onto the market which are capable of doing the work which used to be done by much larger and more expensive computers, so now most smaller companies can use them.
The main development in small computers has been in the field of word processors, or WP's as they are often called. 40% of British offices are now estimated to have a word processor for both secretary and manager. The secretary is freed from a lot of routine work, such as re-typing letters and storing papers. He or she can use this time to do other more interesting work for the boss. From a manager's point of view, secretarial time is being made better use of and money can be saved by doing routine jobs automatically outside office hours.
But is it all good? If a lot of routine secretarial work can be done automati-cally , surely this will mean that fewer secretaries will be needed. Another worry is the increasing medical problems related to work with visual display units. The case of a slow loss of sight among people using word processors seems to have risen greatly. It is also feared that if a woman works at a VDU for long hours, the unborn child in her body might be killed. Safety screens to put over a VDU have been invented but few companies in England bother to buy them.
Whatever the arguments for or against word processors, they are a key feature of this revolution in office practice. | 756.txt | 0 |
[
"There are both advantages and disadvantages in using a word processor.",
"The British companies care much for the health of the people using word processors.",
"The technology in the field of computers has been greatly advanced over the last ten years.",
"Using world processors, secretaries can get more time to do more interesting work for their bosses."
] | Which of the following statements is NOT true? | Without most people realizing it, there has been a revolution in office work over the last ten years. Before that time, large computers were only used by large, rich companies that could afford the investment. With the advancement of technology, small computers have come onto the market which are capable of doing the work which used to be done by much larger and more expensive computers, so now most smaller companies can use them.
The main development in small computers has been in the field of word processors, or WP's as they are often called. 40% of British offices are now estimated to have a word processor for both secretary and manager. The secretary is freed from a lot of routine work, such as re-typing letters and storing papers. He or she can use this time to do other more interesting work for the boss. From a manager's point of view, secretarial time is being made better use of and money can be saved by doing routine jobs automatically outside office hours.
But is it all good? If a lot of routine secretarial work can be done automati-cally , surely this will mean that fewer secretaries will be needed. Another worry is the increasing medical problems related to work with visual display units. The case of a slow loss of sight among people using word processors seems to have risen greatly. It is also feared that if a woman works at a VDU for long hours, the unborn child in her body might be killed. Safety screens to put over a VDU have been invented but few companies in England bother to buy them.
Whatever the arguments for or against word processors, they are a key feature of this revolution in office practice. | 756.txt | 1 |
[
"safety screens are of poor quality",
"working at a VDU for a long time is good for one's health",
"more and more British offices will use word processors",
"British companies will need fewer and fewer managers"
] | It can concluded from the passage that _ . | Without most people realizing it, there has been a revolution in office work over the last ten years. Before that time, large computers were only used by large, rich companies that could afford the investment. With the advancement of technology, small computers have come onto the market which are capable of doing the work which used to be done by much larger and more expensive computers, so now most smaller companies can use them.
The main development in small computers has been in the field of word processors, or WP's as they are often called. 40% of British offices are now estimated to have a word processor for both secretary and manager. The secretary is freed from a lot of routine work, such as re-typing letters and storing papers. He or she can use this time to do other more interesting work for the boss. From a manager's point of view, secretarial time is being made better use of and money can be saved by doing routine jobs automatically outside office hours.
But is it all good? If a lot of routine secretarial work can be done automati-cally , surely this will mean that fewer secretaries will be needed. Another worry is the increasing medical problems related to work with visual display units. The case of a slow loss of sight among people using word processors seems to have risen greatly. It is also feared that if a woman works at a VDU for long hours, the unborn child in her body might be killed. Safety screens to put over a VDU have been invented but few companies in England bother to buy them.
Whatever the arguments for or against word processors, they are a key feature of this revolution in office practice. | 756.txt | 2 |
[
"Measuring Your Intelligence",
"Intelligence and Environment",
"The Case of Peter and Mark",
"How the Brain Influences Intelligence"
] | This selection can best be titled _ . | There are two factors which determine an individual's intelligence. The first is the sort of brain he is born with. Human brains differ considerably , some being more capable than others. But no matter how good a brain he has to begin with, an individual will have a low order of intelligence unless he has opportunities to learn. So the second factor is what happens to the individual- the sort of environment in which he is brought up. If an individual is handicapped environmentally, it is likely that his brain will fail to develop and he will never attain the level of intelligence of which he is capable.
The importance of environment in determining an individual's intelligence can be demonstrated by the case history of the identical twins, Peter and Mark. Being identical, the twins had identical brains at birth, and their growth processes were the same. When the twins were three months old, their parents died, and they were placed in separate foster homes. Peter was raised by parents of low intelligence in an isolated community with poor educational opportunities. Mark was reared in the home of well-to-do parents who had been to college. He was read to as a child, sent to good schools, and given every opportunity to be stimulated intellectually. This environmental difference continued until the twins were in their late teens, when they were given tests to measure their intelligence. Mark's I. Q. was 125, twenty-five points higher than the average and fully forty points higher than his identical brother. Given equal opportunities, the twins, having identical brains, would have tested at roughly the same level. | 1508.txt | 1 |
[
"human brains differ considerably",
"the brain a person is born with is important in determining his intelligence",
"environment is crucial in determining a person's intelligence",
"persons having identical brains will have roughly the same intelligence"
] | The best statement of the main idea of this passage is that _ . | There are two factors which determine an individual's intelligence. The first is the sort of brain he is born with. Human brains differ considerably , some being more capable than others. But no matter how good a brain he has to begin with, an individual will have a low order of intelligence unless he has opportunities to learn. So the second factor is what happens to the individual- the sort of environment in which he is brought up. If an individual is handicapped environmentally, it is likely that his brain will fail to develop and he will never attain the level of intelligence of which he is capable.
The importance of environment in determining an individual's intelligence can be demonstrated by the case history of the identical twins, Peter and Mark. Being identical, the twins had identical brains at birth, and their growth processes were the same. When the twins were three months old, their parents died, and they were placed in separate foster homes. Peter was raised by parents of low intelligence in an isolated community with poor educational opportunities. Mark was reared in the home of well-to-do parents who had been to college. He was read to as a child, sent to good schools, and given every opportunity to be stimulated intellectually. This environmental difference continued until the twins were in their late teens, when they were given tests to measure their intelligence. Mark's I. Q. was 125, twenty-five points higher than the average and fully forty points higher than his identical brother. Given equal opportunities, the twins, having identical brains, would have tested at roughly the same level. | 1508.txt | 2 |
[
"85 .",
"100",
"110",
"125"
] | According to the passage, the average I. Q. is _ . | There are two factors which determine an individual's intelligence. The first is the sort of brain he is born with. Human brains differ considerably , some being more capable than others. But no matter how good a brain he has to begin with, an individual will have a low order of intelligence unless he has opportunities to learn. So the second factor is what happens to the individual- the sort of environment in which he is brought up. If an individual is handicapped environmentally, it is likely that his brain will fail to develop and he will never attain the level of intelligence of which he is capable.
The importance of environment in determining an individual's intelligence can be demonstrated by the case history of the identical twins, Peter and Mark. Being identical, the twins had identical brains at birth, and their growth processes were the same. When the twins were three months old, their parents died, and they were placed in separate foster homes. Peter was raised by parents of low intelligence in an isolated community with poor educational opportunities. Mark was reared in the home of well-to-do parents who had been to college. He was read to as a child, sent to good schools, and given every opportunity to be stimulated intellectually. This environmental difference continued until the twins were in their late teens, when they were given tests to measure their intelligence. Mark's I. Q. was 125, twenty-five points higher than the average and fully forty points higher than his identical brother. Given equal opportunities, the twins, having identical brains, would have tested at roughly the same level. | 1508.txt | 1 |
[
"individuals with identical brains seldom test at the same level",
"an individual's intelligence is determined only by his environment",
"lack of opportunity blocks the growth of intelligence",
"changes of environment produce changes in the structure of the brain"
] | The case history of the twins appears to support the conclusion that _ . | There are two factors which determine an individual's intelligence. The first is the sort of brain he is born with. Human brains differ considerably , some being more capable than others. But no matter how good a brain he has to begin with, an individual will have a low order of intelligence unless he has opportunities to learn. So the second factor is what happens to the individual- the sort of environment in which he is brought up. If an individual is handicapped environmentally, it is likely that his brain will fail to develop and he will never attain the level of intelligence of which he is capable.
The importance of environment in determining an individual's intelligence can be demonstrated by the case history of the identical twins, Peter and Mark. Being identical, the twins had identical brains at birth, and their growth processes were the same. When the twins were three months old, their parents died, and they were placed in separate foster homes. Peter was raised by parents of low intelligence in an isolated community with poor educational opportunities. Mark was reared in the home of well-to-do parents who had been to college. He was read to as a child, sent to good schools, and given every opportunity to be stimulated intellectually. This environmental difference continued until the twins were in their late teens, when they were given tests to measure their intelligence. Mark's I. Q. was 125, twenty-five points higher than the average and fully forty points higher than his identical brother. Given equal opportunities, the twins, having identical brains, would have tested at roughly the same level. | 1508.txt | 2 |
[
"can be predicted at birth",
"stays the same throughout his life",
"can be increased by education",
"is determined by his childhood"
] | This passage suggests that an individual's I. Q. _ . | There are two factors which determine an individual's intelligence. The first is the sort of brain he is born with. Human brains differ considerably , some being more capable than others. But no matter how good a brain he has to begin with, an individual will have a low order of intelligence unless he has opportunities to learn. So the second factor is what happens to the individual- the sort of environment in which he is brought up. If an individual is handicapped environmentally, it is likely that his brain will fail to develop and he will never attain the level of intelligence of which he is capable.
The importance of environment in determining an individual's intelligence can be demonstrated by the case history of the identical twins, Peter and Mark. Being identical, the twins had identical brains at birth, and their growth processes were the same. When the twins were three months old, their parents died, and they were placed in separate foster homes. Peter was raised by parents of low intelligence in an isolated community with poor educational opportunities. Mark was reared in the home of well-to-do parents who had been to college. He was read to as a child, sent to good schools, and given every opportunity to be stimulated intellectually. This environmental difference continued until the twins were in their late teens, when they were given tests to measure their intelligence. Mark's I. Q. was 125, twenty-five points higher than the average and fully forty points higher than his identical brother. Given equal opportunities, the twins, having identical brains, would have tested at roughly the same level. | 1508.txt | 2 |
[
"They are heavenly bodies different in composition.",
"They are heavenly bodies similar in nature.",
"There are more asteroids than meteoroids.",
"Asteroids are more mysterious than meteoroids."
] | What does the passage say about asteroids and meteoroids? | Unless we spend money to spot and prevent asteroids now, one might crash into Earth and destroy life as we know it, say some scientists.
Asteroids are bigger versions of the meteoroids that race across the night sky. Most orbit the sun far from Earth and don't threaten us. But there are also thousands of asteroids whose orbits put them on a collision course with Earth.
Buy $50 million worth of new telescopes right now. Then spend $10 million a year for the next 25 years to locate most of the space rocks. By the time we spot a fatal one, the scientists say, we'll have a way to change its course.
Some scientists favor pushing asteroids off course with nuclear weapons. But the cost wouldn't be cheap.
Is it worth it? Two things experts consider when judging any risk re: 1) How likely the event is; and 2) How bad the consequences if the event occurs. Experts think an asteroid big enough to destroy lots of life might strike Earth once every 500,000 years. Sounds pretty rare-but if one did fall, it would be the end of the world. "If we don't take care of these big asteroids, they'll take care of us," says one scientist. "It's that simple."
The cure, though, might be worse than the disease. Do we really want fleets of nuclear weapons sitting around on Earth? "The world has less to fear from doomsday rocks than from a great nuclear fleet set against them," said a New York Times article. | 797.txt | 1 |
[
"It is very unlikely but the danger exists.",
"Such a collision might occur once every 25 years.",
"Collisions of smaller asteroids with Earth occur more often than expected.",
"It's still too early to say whether such a collision might occur."
] | What do scientists say about the collision of an asteroid with Earth? | Unless we spend money to spot and prevent asteroids now, one might crash into Earth and destroy life as we know it, say some scientists.
Asteroids are bigger versions of the meteoroids that race across the night sky. Most orbit the sun far from Earth and don't threaten us. But there are also thousands of asteroids whose orbits put them on a collision course with Earth.
Buy $50 million worth of new telescopes right now. Then spend $10 million a year for the next 25 years to locate most of the space rocks. By the time we spot a fatal one, the scientists say, we'll have a way to change its course.
Some scientists favor pushing asteroids off course with nuclear weapons. But the cost wouldn't be cheap.
Is it worth it? Two things experts consider when judging any risk re: 1) How likely the event is; and 2) How bad the consequences if the event occurs. Experts think an asteroid big enough to destroy lots of life might strike Earth once every 500,000 years. Sounds pretty rare-but if one did fall, it would be the end of the world. "If we don't take care of these big asteroids, they'll take care of us," says one scientist. "It's that simple."
The cure, though, might be worse than the disease. Do we really want fleets of nuclear weapons sitting around on Earth? "The world has less to fear from doomsday rocks than from a great nuclear fleet set against them," said a New York Times article. | 797.txt | 0 |
[
"It sounds practical but it may not solve the problem.",
"It may create more problems than it might solve.",
"It is a waste of money because a collision of asteroids with Earth is very unlikely.",
"Further research should be done before it is proved applicable."
] | What do people think of the suggestion of using nuclear weapons to alter the courses of asteroids? | Unless we spend money to spot and prevent asteroids now, one might crash into Earth and destroy life as we know it, say some scientists.
Asteroids are bigger versions of the meteoroids that race across the night sky. Most orbit the sun far from Earth and don't threaten us. But there are also thousands of asteroids whose orbits put them on a collision course with Earth.
Buy $50 million worth of new telescopes right now. Then spend $10 million a year for the next 25 years to locate most of the space rocks. By the time we spot a fatal one, the scientists say, we'll have a way to change its course.
Some scientists favor pushing asteroids off course with nuclear weapons. But the cost wouldn't be cheap.
Is it worth it? Two things experts consider when judging any risk re: 1) How likely the event is; and 2) How bad the consequences if the event occurs. Experts think an asteroid big enough to destroy lots of life might strike Earth once every 500,000 years. Sounds pretty rare-but if one did fall, it would be the end of the world. "If we don't take care of these big asteroids, they'll take care of us," says one scientist. "It's that simple."
The cure, though, might be worse than the disease. Do we really want fleets of nuclear weapons sitting around on Earth? "The world has less to fear from doomsday rocks than from a great nuclear fleet set against them," said a New York Times article. | 797.txt | 1 |
[
"while pushing asteroids off course nuclear weapons would destroy the world",
"asteroids racing across the night sky are likely to hit Earth in the near future",
"the worry about asteroids can be left to future generations since it is unlikely to happen in our lifetime",
"workable solutions still have to be found to prevent a collision of asteroids with Earth"
] | We can conclude from the passage that _ . | Unless we spend money to spot and prevent asteroids now, one might crash into Earth and destroy life as we know it, say some scientists.
Asteroids are bigger versions of the meteoroids that race across the night sky. Most orbit the sun far from Earth and don't threaten us. But there are also thousands of asteroids whose orbits put them on a collision course with Earth.
Buy $50 million worth of new telescopes right now. Then spend $10 million a year for the next 25 years to locate most of the space rocks. By the time we spot a fatal one, the scientists say, we'll have a way to change its course.
Some scientists favor pushing asteroids off course with nuclear weapons. But the cost wouldn't be cheap.
Is it worth it? Two things experts consider when judging any risk re: 1) How likely the event is; and 2) How bad the consequences if the event occurs. Experts think an asteroid big enough to destroy lots of life might strike Earth once every 500,000 years. Sounds pretty rare-but if one did fall, it would be the end of the world. "If we don't take care of these big asteroids, they'll take care of us," says one scientist. "It's that simple."
The cure, though, might be worse than the disease. Do we really want fleets of nuclear weapons sitting around on Earth? "The world has less to fear from doomsday rocks than from a great nuclear fleet set against them," said a New York Times article. | 797.txt | 3 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.