option
list | question
stringlengths 11
354
| article
stringlengths 231
6.74k
| id
stringlengths 5
8
| label
int64 0
3
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
[
"the crowd does it",
"you can't afford them",
"you don't look good in red",
"the situation isn't safe"
] | The author doesn't think it good wearing red sweaters if _ . | In every school there is a "top" crowd that sets the pace, while the others follow their lead. Let's say the top crowd decides that it is smart to wear bright red sweaters. Pretty soon everybody is wearing a bright red sweater.
There is nothing wrong with that, except the fact that on some people bright red sweater is extremely unbecoming. The situation can even become dangerous, if the top crowd decides that it is smart to drink or to drive cars at seventy miles an hour. Then the people who follow the lead are endangering their lives. They are like the sheep being led to the butcher.
Now, chances are that you have come across situations like these more than once in your life; chances are that one time or another you probably did something you knew to be wrong. You may have excused yourself by saying, "Gee, the crowd does it." Well, let the crowd do it, but don't do it yourself. Learn to say, "No."
Develop your own standards and your own judgment. If you know the crowd is planning something you disagree to, have the courage to bow out mannerly. You'll have the satisfaction of standing on your own two feet. | 2897.txt | 2 |
[
"sometimes do things against their better judgment",
"make mistakes blindly",
"are willing to put their lives in danger",
"will in the end become pace-setters"
] | According to the passage, people who follow the crowd _ . | In every school there is a "top" crowd that sets the pace, while the others follow their lead. Let's say the top crowd decides that it is smart to wear bright red sweaters. Pretty soon everybody is wearing a bright red sweater.
There is nothing wrong with that, except the fact that on some people bright red sweater is extremely unbecoming. The situation can even become dangerous, if the top crowd decides that it is smart to drink or to drive cars at seventy miles an hour. Then the people who follow the lead are endangering their lives. They are like the sheep being led to the butcher.
Now, chances are that you have come across situations like these more than once in your life; chances are that one time or another you probably did something you knew to be wrong. You may have excused yourself by saying, "Gee, the crowd does it." Well, let the crowd do it, but don't do it yourself. Learn to say, "No."
Develop your own standards and your own judgment. If you know the crowd is planning something you disagree to, have the courage to bow out mannerly. You'll have the satisfaction of standing on your own two feet. | 2897.txt | 0 |
[
"Our first twelve years represent the peak of human development.",
"People usually are unhappy when reminded of ageing.",
"Normally only a few of us can live to the eighties and nineties.",
"People are usually less likely to die at twelve years old."
] | Which of the following statements is INCORRECT? | At the age of twelve years, the human body is at its most vigorous. It has yet to reach its full size and strength, and its owner his or her full intelligence; but at this age the likelihood of death is least. Earlier, we were infants and young children, and consequently more vulnerable; later, we shall undergo a progressive loss of our vigor and resistance which, though imperceptible at first, will finally become so steep that we can live no longer, however well we look after ourselves, and however well society, and our doctors, look after us.
This decline in vigor with the passing of time is called ageing. It is one of the most unpleasant discoveries which we all make that we must decline in this way, that if we escape wars, accidents and disease we shall eventually "die of old age", and that this happens at a rate which differs little from person to person, so that there are heavy odds in favor of our dying between the ages of sixty-five and eighty. Some of us will die sooner, a few will live longer-on into a ninth or tenth decade. But the chances are against it, and there is a virtual limit on how long we can hope to remain alive, however lucky and robust we are.
Normal people tend to forget this process unless and until they are reminded of it. We are so familiar with the fact that man ages, that people have for years assumed that the process of losing vigor with time, of becoming more likely to die the older we get, was something self-evident, like the cooling of a hot kettle or the wearing-out of a pair of shoes. They have also assumed that all animals, and probably other organisms such as trees, or even the universe itself, must in the nature of things "wear out".
Most animals we commonly observe do in fact age as we do, if given the chance to live long enough; and mechanical systems like a wound watch, or the sun, do in fact an out of energy in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics (whether the whole universe does so is a moot point at present). But these are not analogous to what happens when man ages. A run-down watch is still a watch and can be rewound. An old watch, by contrast, becomes so worn and unreliable that it eventually is not worth mending. But a watch could never repair itself-it does not consist of living parts, only of metal, which wears away by friction. We could,at one time, repair ourselves-well enough, at least, to overcome all but the most instantly fatal illnesses and accidents. Between twelve and eighty years we gradually lose this power; an illness which at twelve would knock us over, at eighty can knock us out, and into our grave. If we could stay as vigorous as we are at twelve, it would take about 700 years for half of us to die, and another 700 for the survivors to be reduced by half again. | 97.txt | 0 |
[
"remaining alive until 65.",
"remaining alive after 80.",
"dying before 65 or after 80.",
"dying between 65 and 80."
] | The word "it" in the last sentence of Paragraph Two refers to | At the age of twelve years, the human body is at its most vigorous. It has yet to reach its full size and strength, and its owner his or her full intelligence; but at this age the likelihood of death is least. Earlier, we were infants and young children, and consequently more vulnerable; later, we shall undergo a progressive loss of our vigor and resistance which, though imperceptible at first, will finally become so steep that we can live no longer, however well we look after ourselves, and however well society, and our doctors, look after us.
This decline in vigor with the passing of time is called ageing. It is one of the most unpleasant discoveries which we all make that we must decline in this way, that if we escape wars, accidents and disease we shall eventually "die of old age", and that this happens at a rate which differs little from person to person, so that there are heavy odds in favor of our dying between the ages of sixty-five and eighty. Some of us will die sooner, a few will live longer-on into a ninth or tenth decade. But the chances are against it, and there is a virtual limit on how long we can hope to remain alive, however lucky and robust we are.
Normal people tend to forget this process unless and until they are reminded of it. We are so familiar with the fact that man ages, that people have for years assumed that the process of losing vigor with time, of becoming more likely to die the older we get, was something self-evident, like the cooling of a hot kettle or the wearing-out of a pair of shoes. They have also assumed that all animals, and probably other organisms such as trees, or even the universe itself, must in the nature of things "wear out".
Most animals we commonly observe do in fact age as we do, if given the chance to live long enough; and mechanical systems like a wound watch, or the sun, do in fact an out of energy in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics (whether the whole universe does so is a moot point at present). But these are not analogous to what happens when man ages. A run-down watch is still a watch and can be rewound. An old watch, by contrast, becomes so worn and unreliable that it eventually is not worth mending. But a watch could never repair itself-it does not consist of living parts, only of metal, which wears away by friction. We could,at one time, repair ourselves-well enough, at least, to overcome all but the most instantly fatal illnesses and accidents. Between twelve and eighty years we gradually lose this power; an illness which at twelve would knock us over, at eighty can knock us out, and into our grave. If we could stay as vigorous as we are at twelve, it would take about 700 years for half of us to die, and another 700 for the survivors to be reduced by half again. | 97.txt | 1 |
[
"It is usually a phenomenon of dying at an old age.",
"It is a fact that people cannot live any longer.",
"It is a gradual loss of vigor and resistance.",
"It is a phase when people are easily attacked by illness."
] | What is ageing? | At the age of twelve years, the human body is at its most vigorous. It has yet to reach its full size and strength, and its owner his or her full intelligence; but at this age the likelihood of death is least. Earlier, we were infants and young children, and consequently more vulnerable; later, we shall undergo a progressive loss of our vigor and resistance which, though imperceptible at first, will finally become so steep that we can live no longer, however well we look after ourselves, and however well society, and our doctors, look after us.
This decline in vigor with the passing of time is called ageing. It is one of the most unpleasant discoveries which we all make that we must decline in this way, that if we escape wars, accidents and disease we shall eventually "die of old age", and that this happens at a rate which differs little from person to person, so that there are heavy odds in favor of our dying between the ages of sixty-five and eighty. Some of us will die sooner, a few will live longer-on into a ninth or tenth decade. But the chances are against it, and there is a virtual limit on how long we can hope to remain alive, however lucky and robust we are.
Normal people tend to forget this process unless and until they are reminded of it. We are so familiar with the fact that man ages, that people have for years assumed that the process of losing vigor with time, of becoming more likely to die the older we get, was something self-evident, like the cooling of a hot kettle or the wearing-out of a pair of shoes. They have also assumed that all animals, and probably other organisms such as trees, or even the universe itself, must in the nature of things "wear out".
Most animals we commonly observe do in fact age as we do, if given the chance to live long enough; and mechanical systems like a wound watch, or the sun, do in fact an out of energy in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics (whether the whole universe does so is a moot point at present). But these are not analogous to what happens when man ages. A run-down watch is still a watch and can be rewound. An old watch, by contrast, becomes so worn and unreliable that it eventually is not worth mending. But a watch could never repair itself-it does not consist of living parts, only of metal, which wears away by friction. We could,at one time, repair ourselves-well enough, at least, to overcome all but the most instantly fatal illnesses and accidents. Between twelve and eighty years we gradually lose this power; an illness which at twelve would knock us over, at eighty can knock us out, and into our grave. If we could stay as vigorous as we are at twelve, it would take about 700 years for half of us to die, and another 700 for the survivors to be reduced by half again. | 97.txt | 2 |
[
"Normally people are quite familiar with the ageing process.",
"All animals and other organisms undergo the ageing process.",
"The law of thermodynamics functions in the ageing process.",
"Human's ageing process is different from that of mechanisms."
] | What do the examples of watch show? | At the age of twelve years, the human body is at its most vigorous. It has yet to reach its full size and strength, and its owner his or her full intelligence; but at this age the likelihood of death is least. Earlier, we were infants and young children, and consequently more vulnerable; later, we shall undergo a progressive loss of our vigor and resistance which, though imperceptible at first, will finally become so steep that we can live no longer, however well we look after ourselves, and however well society, and our doctors, look after us.
This decline in vigor with the passing of time is called ageing. It is one of the most unpleasant discoveries which we all make that we must decline in this way, that if we escape wars, accidents and disease we shall eventually "die of old age", and that this happens at a rate which differs little from person to person, so that there are heavy odds in favor of our dying between the ages of sixty-five and eighty. Some of us will die sooner, a few will live longer-on into a ninth or tenth decade. But the chances are against it, and there is a virtual limit on how long we can hope to remain alive, however lucky and robust we are.
Normal people tend to forget this process unless and until they are reminded of it. We are so familiar with the fact that man ages, that people have for years assumed that the process of losing vigor with time, of becoming more likely to die the older we get, was something self-evident, like the cooling of a hot kettle or the wearing-out of a pair of shoes. They have also assumed that all animals, and probably other organisms such as trees, or even the universe itself, must in the nature of things "wear out".
Most animals we commonly observe do in fact age as we do, if given the chance to live long enough; and mechanical systems like a wound watch, or the sun, do in fact an out of energy in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics (whether the whole universe does so is a moot point at present). But these are not analogous to what happens when man ages. A run-down watch is still a watch and can be rewound. An old watch, by contrast, becomes so worn and unreliable that it eventually is not worth mending. But a watch could never repair itself-it does not consist of living parts, only of metal, which wears away by friction. We could,at one time, repair ourselves-well enough, at least, to overcome all but the most instantly fatal illnesses and accidents. Between twelve and eighty years we gradually lose this power; an illness which at twelve would knock us over, at eighty can knock us out, and into our grave. If we could stay as vigorous as we are at twelve, it would take about 700 years for half of us to die, and another 700 for the survivors to be reduced by half again. | 97.txt | 3 |
[
"Argumentation.",
"Exposition.",
"Narration.",
"Description."
] | Which of the following best fits the style of this passage? | At the age of twelve years, the human body is at its most vigorous. It has yet to reach its full size and strength, and its owner his or her full intelligence; but at this age the likelihood of death is least. Earlier, we were infants and young children, and consequently more vulnerable; later, we shall undergo a progressive loss of our vigor and resistance which, though imperceptible at first, will finally become so steep that we can live no longer, however well we look after ourselves, and however well society, and our doctors, look after us.
This decline in vigor with the passing of time is called ageing. It is one of the most unpleasant discoveries which we all make that we must decline in this way, that if we escape wars, accidents and disease we shall eventually "die of old age", and that this happens at a rate which differs little from person to person, so that there are heavy odds in favor of our dying between the ages of sixty-five and eighty. Some of us will die sooner, a few will live longer-on into a ninth or tenth decade. But the chances are against it, and there is a virtual limit on how long we can hope to remain alive, however lucky and robust we are.
Normal people tend to forget this process unless and until they are reminded of it. We are so familiar with the fact that man ages, that people have for years assumed that the process of losing vigor with time, of becoming more likely to die the older we get, was something self-evident, like the cooling of a hot kettle or the wearing-out of a pair of shoes. They have also assumed that all animals, and probably other organisms such as trees, or even the universe itself, must in the nature of things "wear out".
Most animals we commonly observe do in fact age as we do, if given the chance to live long enough; and mechanical systems like a wound watch, or the sun, do in fact an out of energy in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics (whether the whole universe does so is a moot point at present). But these are not analogous to what happens when man ages. A run-down watch is still a watch and can be rewound. An old watch, by contrast, becomes so worn and unreliable that it eventually is not worth mending. But a watch could never repair itself-it does not consist of living parts, only of metal, which wears away by friction. We could,at one time, repair ourselves-well enough, at least, to overcome all but the most instantly fatal illnesses and accidents. Between twelve and eighty years we gradually lose this power; an illness which at twelve would knock us over, at eighty can knock us out, and into our grave. If we could stay as vigorous as we are at twelve, it would take about 700 years for half of us to die, and another 700 for the survivors to be reduced by half again. | 97.txt | 1 |
[
"San Francisco Winery Tour.",
"Back to the Fifties Tour.",
"Spooky Hallowen Tour.",
"Holiday Lights Tour."
] | Which of the tours is available in March? | San Francisco Fire Engine Tours
San Francisco Winery Tour
Running: February 1st through April 30th
This delicious tour goes through the city on its way to Treasure Island where we will stop at the famous Winery SF. Here you can enjoy 4 pours of some of the best wine San Francisco has to offer.(Included in tickets price)
Departing from the Cannery: Tell time upon request.
Duration：2 hours
Price: $90
Back to the Fifties Tour
Running: August 16th through August 31st
This tour transports you back in time to one of San Francisco's most fantastic periods, the 1950s! Enjoy fun history as we take you through San Francisco for a free taste of ice cream.
Departing form the Cannery 5:00 pm and 7:00 pm
Duration:2 hours
Price:$90
Spooky Halloween Tour
Running: October 10th through October 31st
Join us for a ride through the historical Presidio district.Authentic fire gear is provided for your warmth as our entertainers take you to some of the most thrilling parts of San Francisco
Departing from the Cannery:6:30 pm and 8:30 pm
Duration :1 hour and 30 minutes
Price: Available upon request
Holiday Lights Tour
Running: December 6th through December 23nd
This tractive four takes you to some of San Francis's most cheerful holiday scenes. Authentic fire gear is provided for your warmth as you get into the holiday spirit.
Departing from the Cannery 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm
Duration: I hour and 30 minutes
Advance reservations required. | 3619.txt | 0 |
[
"Go to Treasure Island.",
"Enjoy the holiday scenes.",
"Have free ice cream.",
"Visit the Presidio district."
] | What can tourists do on Back to the Fifties Tours? | San Francisco Fire Engine Tours
San Francisco Winery Tour
Running: February 1st through April 30th
This delicious tour goes through the city on its way to Treasure Island where we will stop at the famous Winery SF. Here you can enjoy 4 pours of some of the best wine San Francisco has to offer.(Included in tickets price)
Departing from the Cannery: Tell time upon request.
Duration：2 hours
Price: $90
Back to the Fifties Tour
Running: August 16th through August 31st
This tour transports you back in time to one of San Francisco's most fantastic periods, the 1950s! Enjoy fun history as we take you through San Francisco for a free taste of ice cream.
Departing form the Cannery 5:00 pm and 7:00 pm
Duration:2 hours
Price:$90
Spooky Halloween Tour
Running: October 10th through October 31st
Join us for a ride through the historical Presidio district.Authentic fire gear is provided for your warmth as our entertainers take you to some of the most thrilling parts of San Francisco
Departing from the Cannery:6:30 pm and 8:30 pm
Duration :1 hour and 30 minutes
Price: Available upon request
Holiday Lights Tour
Running: December 6th through December 23nd
This tractive four takes you to some of San Francis's most cheerful holiday scenes. Authentic fire gear is provided for your warmth as you get into the holiday spirit.
Departing from the Cannery 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm
Duration: I hour and 30 minutes
Advance reservations required. | 3619.txt | 2 |
[
"Take some drinks.",
"Set off early in the morning.",
"Wear warm clothes.",
"Make reservations in advance."
] | What are tourists required to do to go on Holiday Lights Tour? | San Francisco Fire Engine Tours
San Francisco Winery Tour
Running: February 1st through April 30th
This delicious tour goes through the city on its way to Treasure Island where we will stop at the famous Winery SF. Here you can enjoy 4 pours of some of the best wine San Francisco has to offer.(Included in tickets price)
Departing from the Cannery: Tell time upon request.
Duration：2 hours
Price: $90
Back to the Fifties Tour
Running: August 16th through August 31st
This tour transports you back in time to one of San Francisco's most fantastic periods, the 1950s! Enjoy fun history as we take you through San Francisco for a free taste of ice cream.
Departing form the Cannery 5:00 pm and 7:00 pm
Duration:2 hours
Price:$90
Spooky Halloween Tour
Running: October 10th through October 31st
Join us for a ride through the historical Presidio district.Authentic fire gear is provided for your warmth as our entertainers take you to some of the most thrilling parts of San Francisco
Departing from the Cannery:6:30 pm and 8:30 pm
Duration :1 hour and 30 minutes
Price: Available upon request
Holiday Lights Tour
Running: December 6th through December 23nd
This tractive four takes you to some of San Francis's most cheerful holiday scenes. Authentic fire gear is provided for your warmth as you get into the holiday spirit.
Departing from the Cannery 7:00 pm and 9:00 pm
Duration: I hour and 30 minutes
Advance reservations required. | 3619.txt | 3 |
[
"To help students connect with the outside world.",
"To bring university students into closer contact.",
"To help students learn to live in a connected era.",
"To combine the world into an integral whole."
] | What was the purpose of Facebook when it was first created? | When Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg launched thefacebook, com in Feb.2004, even he could notimagine the forces it would let loose. His intent was to connect college students. Facebook, which is whatthis website rapidly evolved into, ended up connecting the world.
To the children of this connected era, the world is one giant social network. They are not bound--aswere previous generations of humans--by what they were taught. They are only limited by their curiosityand ambition. During my childhood, all knowledge was local. You learned everything you knew from yourparents, teachers, preachers, and friends.
With the high-quality and timely information at their fingertips, today's children are rising above thefears and biases of their parents. Adults are also participating in this revolution. India's normally tamemiddle class is speaking up against social ills. Silicon Valley executives are being shamed into addingwomen to their boards. Political leaders are marshalling the energy of millions for elections and politicalcauses. All of this is being done with social media technologies that Facebook and its competitors set free.As does every advancing technology, social media has created many new problems. It is commonlyaddictive and creates risks for younger users. Social media is used by extremists in the Middle East andelsewhere to seek and brainwash recruits. And it exposes us and our friends to disagreeable spying. Wemay leave our lights on in the house when we are on vacation, but through social media we tell criminals exactly where we are, when we plan to return home, and how to blackmail us.
Governments don't need informers any more. Social media allows government agencies to spy on theirown citizens. We record our thoughts, emotions, likes and dislikes on Facebook; we share our politicalviews, social preferences, and plans. We post intimate photographs of ourselves. No spy agency orcriminal organization could actively gather the type of data that we voluntarily post for them.
The marketers are also seeing big opportunities. Amazon is trying to predict what we will order.Google is trying to judge our needs and wants based on our social-media profiles. We need to be aware ofthe risks and keep working to alleviate the dangers.
Regardless of what social media people use, one thing is certain: we are in a period of acceleratingchange. The next decade will be even more amazing and unpredictable than the last. Just as no one couldpredict what would happen with social media in the last decade, no one can accurately predict where thistechnology will take us. I am optimistic, however, that a connected humanity will find a way to upliftitself. | 1465.txt | 1 |
[
"Local knowledge and global knowledge will merge.",
"Students will become more ctirious and ambitious.",
"People are able to learn wherever they travel.",
"Sources of information are greatly expanded.,"
] | What difference does social media make to learning? | When Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg launched thefacebook, com in Feb.2004, even he could notimagine the forces it would let loose. His intent was to connect college students. Facebook, which is whatthis website rapidly evolved into, ended up connecting the world.
To the children of this connected era, the world is one giant social network. They are not bound--aswere previous generations of humans--by what they were taught. They are only limited by their curiosityand ambition. During my childhood, all knowledge was local. You learned everything you knew from yourparents, teachers, preachers, and friends.
With the high-quality and timely information at their fingertips, today's children are rising above thefears and biases of their parents. Adults are also participating in this revolution. India's normally tamemiddle class is speaking up against social ills. Silicon Valley executives are being shamed into addingwomen to their boards. Political leaders are marshalling the energy of millions for elections and politicalcauses. All of this is being done with social media technologies that Facebook and its competitors set free.As does every advancing technology, social media has created many new problems. It is commonlyaddictive and creates risks for younger users. Social media is used by extremists in the Middle East andelsewhere to seek and brainwash recruits. And it exposes us and our friends to disagreeable spying. Wemay leave our lights on in the house when we are on vacation, but through social media we tell criminals exactly where we are, when we plan to return home, and how to blackmail us.
Governments don't need informers any more. Social media allows government agencies to spy on theirown citizens. We record our thoughts, emotions, likes and dislikes on Facebook; we share our politicalviews, social preferences, and plans. We post intimate photographs of ourselves. No spy agency orcriminal organization could actively gather the type of data that we voluntarily post for them.
The marketers are also seeing big opportunities. Amazon is trying to predict what we will order.Google is trying to judge our needs and wants based on our social-media profiles. We need to be aware ofthe risks and keep working to alleviate the dangers.
Regardless of what social media people use, one thing is certain: we are in a period of acceleratingchange. The next decade will be even more amazing and unpredictable than the last. Just as no one couldpredict what would happen with social media in the last decade, no one can accurately predict where thistechnology will take us. I am optimistic, however, that a connected humanity will find a way to upliftitself. | 1465.txt | 3 |
[
"Individuals and organizations may use it for evil purposes.",
"Government will find it hard to protect classified information.",
"People may disclose their friends' information unintentionally.",
"People's attention will be easily distracted from their work in hand."
] | What is the author's greatest concern with social media technology? | When Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg launched thefacebook, com in Feb.2004, even he could notimagine the forces it would let loose. His intent was to connect college students. Facebook, which is whatthis website rapidly evolved into, ended up connecting the world.
To the children of this connected era, the world is one giant social network. They are not bound--aswere previous generations of humans--by what they were taught. They are only limited by their curiosityand ambition. During my childhood, all knowledge was local. You learned everything you knew from yourparents, teachers, preachers, and friends.
With the high-quality and timely information at their fingertips, today's children are rising above thefears and biases of their parents. Adults are also participating in this revolution. India's normally tamemiddle class is speaking up against social ills. Silicon Valley executives are being shamed into addingwomen to their boards. Political leaders are marshalling the energy of millions for elections and politicalcauses. All of this is being done with social media technologies that Facebook and its competitors set free.As does every advancing technology, social media has created many new problems. It is commonlyaddictive and creates risks for younger users. Social media is used by extremists in the Middle East andelsewhere to seek and brainwash recruits. And it exposes us and our friends to disagreeable spying. Wemay leave our lights on in the house when we are on vacation, but through social media we tell criminals exactly where we are, when we plan to return home, and how to blackmail us.
Governments don't need informers any more. Social media allows government agencies to spy on theirown citizens. We record our thoughts, emotions, likes and dislikes on Facebook; we share our politicalviews, social preferences, and plans. We post intimate photographs of ourselves. No spy agency orcriminal organization could actively gather the type of data that we voluntarily post for them.
The marketers are also seeing big opportunities. Amazon is trying to predict what we will order.Google is trying to judge our needs and wants based on our social-media profiles. We need to be aware ofthe risks and keep working to alleviate the dangers.
Regardless of what social media people use, one thing is certain: we are in a period of acceleratingchange. The next decade will be even more amazing and unpredictable than the last. Just as no one couldpredict what would happen with social media in the last decade, no one can accurately predict where thistechnology will take us. I am optimistic, however, that a connected humanity will find a way to upliftitself. | 1465.txt | 0 |
[
"Creating a good corporate image.",
"Anticipating the needs of customers.",
"Conducting large-scale market surveys.",
"Minimizing possible risks and dangers."
] | What do businesses use social media for? | When Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg launched thefacebook, com in Feb.2004, even he could notimagine the forces it would let loose. His intent was to connect college students. Facebook, which is whatthis website rapidly evolved into, ended up connecting the world.
To the children of this connected era, the world is one giant social network. They are not bound--aswere previous generations of humans--by what they were taught. They are only limited by their curiosityand ambition. During my childhood, all knowledge was local. You learned everything you knew from yourparents, teachers, preachers, and friends.
With the high-quality and timely information at their fingertips, today's children are rising above thefears and biases of their parents. Adults are also participating in this revolution. India's normally tamemiddle class is speaking up against social ills. Silicon Valley executives are being shamed into addingwomen to their boards. Political leaders are marshalling the energy of millions for elections and politicalcauses. All of this is being done with social media technologies that Facebook and its competitors set free.As does every advancing technology, social media has created many new problems. It is commonlyaddictive and creates risks for younger users. Social media is used by extremists in the Middle East andelsewhere to seek and brainwash recruits. And it exposes us and our friends to disagreeable spying. Wemay leave our lights on in the house when we are on vacation, but through social media we tell criminals exactly where we are, when we plan to return home, and how to blackmail us.
Governments don't need informers any more. Social media allows government agencies to spy on theirown citizens. We record our thoughts, emotions, likes and dislikes on Facebook; we share our politicalviews, social preferences, and plans. We post intimate photographs of ourselves. No spy agency orcriminal organization could actively gather the type of data that we voluntarily post for them.
The marketers are also seeing big opportunities. Amazon is trying to predict what we will order.Google is trying to judge our needs and wants based on our social-media profiles. We need to be aware ofthe risks and keep working to alleviate the dangers.
Regardless of what social media people use, one thing is certain: we are in a period of acceleratingchange. The next decade will be even more amazing and unpredictable than the last. Just as no one couldpredict what would happen with social media in the last decade, no one can accurately predict where thistechnology will take us. I am optimistic, however, that a connected humanity will find a way to upliftitself. | 1465.txt | 1 |
[
"It will enable ,human society to advance at a faster pace.",
"It will pose a grave threat to our traditional ways of life.",
"It is bound to bring about another information revolution.",
"It breaks down the final barriers in human communication."
] | What does the author think of social media as a whole? | When Harvard student Mark Zuckerberg launched thefacebook, com in Feb.2004, even he could notimagine the forces it would let loose. His intent was to connect college students. Facebook, which is whatthis website rapidly evolved into, ended up connecting the world.
To the children of this connected era, the world is one giant social network. They are not bound--aswere previous generations of humans--by what they were taught. They are only limited by their curiosityand ambition. During my childhood, all knowledge was local. You learned everything you knew from yourparents, teachers, preachers, and friends.
With the high-quality and timely information at their fingertips, today's children are rising above thefears and biases of their parents. Adults are also participating in this revolution. India's normally tamemiddle class is speaking up against social ills. Silicon Valley executives are being shamed into addingwomen to their boards. Political leaders are marshalling the energy of millions for elections and politicalcauses. All of this is being done with social media technologies that Facebook and its competitors set free.As does every advancing technology, social media has created many new problems. It is commonlyaddictive and creates risks for younger users. Social media is used by extremists in the Middle East andelsewhere to seek and brainwash recruits. And it exposes us and our friends to disagreeable spying. Wemay leave our lights on in the house when we are on vacation, but through social media we tell criminals exactly where we are, when we plan to return home, and how to blackmail us.
Governments don't need informers any more. Social media allows government agencies to spy on theirown citizens. We record our thoughts, emotions, likes and dislikes on Facebook; we share our politicalviews, social preferences, and plans. We post intimate photographs of ourselves. No spy agency orcriminal organization could actively gather the type of data that we voluntarily post for them.
The marketers are also seeing big opportunities. Amazon is trying to predict what we will order.Google is trying to judge our needs and wants based on our social-media profiles. We need to be aware ofthe risks and keep working to alleviate the dangers.
Regardless of what social media people use, one thing is certain: we are in a period of acceleratingchange. The next decade will be even more amazing and unpredictable than the last. Just as no one couldpredict what would happen with social media in the last decade, no one can accurately predict where thistechnology will take us. I am optimistic, however, that a connected humanity will find a way to upliftitself. | 1465.txt | 0 |
[
"One hundred dollars.",
"Two hundred dollars.",
"Three hundred dollars.",
"Four hundred dollars."
] | How much did the lottery winner lose? | Do you know of anyone who uses the truth to deceive?When someone tells you something that is true,but leaves out important information that should be included,he can give you a false picture.
For example,someone might say,"I just won a hundred dollars on the lottery.It was great.I took that dollar ticket back to the store and turned it in for one hundred dollars!"
This guy's a winner,right? Maybe,maybe not.We then discover that he bought $200 worth of tickets,and only one was a winner.He's really a big loser!
He didn't say anything that was false,but he left out important information on purpose.That's called a half-truth.Half-truths are not technically lies,but they are just as dishonest.
Some politicians often use this trick.Let's say that during Governor Smith's last term,her state lost one million jobs and gained three million jobs.Then she seeks another term.One of her opponents says,"During Governor Smith's term,the state lost one million jobs!"That's true.However,an honest statement would have been,"During Governor Smith's term,the state had a net gain of two million jobs."
Advertisers will sometimes use half-truths.It's against the law to make false statements so they try to mislead you with the truth.An advertisement might say,"Nine out of ten doctors advised their patients to take Yucky Pills to cure toothache."It fails to mention that they only asked ten doctors and nine of them work for the Yucky Company.
This kind of deception happens too often.It's a sad fact of life:Lies are lies,and sometimes the truth can lie as well. | 3434.txt | 0 |
[
"buy lottery tickets",
"make use of half-truths",
"not take anything at face value",
"not trust the Yucky Company"
] | We may infer that the author believes people should. | Do you know of anyone who uses the truth to deceive?When someone tells you something that is true,but leaves out important information that should be included,he can give you a false picture.
For example,someone might say,"I just won a hundred dollars on the lottery.It was great.I took that dollar ticket back to the store and turned it in for one hundred dollars!"
This guy's a winner,right? Maybe,maybe not.We then discover that he bought $200 worth of tickets,and only one was a winner.He's really a big loser!
He didn't say anything that was false,but he left out important information on purpose.That's called a half-truth.Half-truths are not technically lies,but they are just as dishonest.
Some politicians often use this trick.Let's say that during Governor Smith's last term,her state lost one million jobs and gained three million jobs.Then she seeks another term.One of her opponents says,"During Governor Smith's term,the state lost one million jobs!"That's true.However,an honest statement would have been,"During Governor Smith's term,the state had a net gain of two million jobs."
Advertisers will sometimes use half-truths.It's against the law to make false statements so they try to mislead you with the truth.An advertisement might say,"Nine out of ten doctors advised their patients to take Yucky Pills to cure toothache."It fails to mention that they only asked ten doctors and nine of them work for the Yucky Company.
This kind of deception happens too often.It's a sad fact of life:Lies are lies,and sometimes the truth can lie as well. | 3434.txt | 2 |
[
"False statements are easy to see through.",
"Half-truths are often used to mislead people.",
"Doctors like to act in advertisements.",
"Advertisements are based on facts."
] | What can we know from the example of the Yucky Pill advertisement? | Do you know of anyone who uses the truth to deceive?When someone tells you something that is true,but leaves out important information that should be included,he can give you a false picture.
For example,someone might say,"I just won a hundred dollars on the lottery.It was great.I took that dollar ticket back to the store and turned it in for one hundred dollars!"
This guy's a winner,right? Maybe,maybe not.We then discover that he bought $200 worth of tickets,and only one was a winner.He's really a big loser!
He didn't say anything that was false,but he left out important information on purpose.That's called a half-truth.Half-truths are not technically lies,but they are just as dishonest.
Some politicians often use this trick.Let's say that during Governor Smith's last term,her state lost one million jobs and gained three million jobs.Then she seeks another term.One of her opponents says,"During Governor Smith's term,the state lost one million jobs!"That's true.However,an honest statement would have been,"During Governor Smith's term,the state had a net gain of two million jobs."
Advertisers will sometimes use half-truths.It's against the law to make false statements so they try to mislead you with the truth.An advertisement might say,"Nine out of ten doctors advised their patients to take Yucky Pills to cure toothache."It fails to mention that they only asked ten doctors and nine of them work for the Yucky Company.
This kind of deception happens too often.It's a sad fact of life:Lies are lies,and sometimes the truth can lie as well. | 3434.txt | 1 |
[
"In the 1940s.",
"In the 1960s.",
"In the 1970s.",
"In the 1980s."
] | When did American stop using DDT? | The World Health Organization now supports the use of DDT in homes to control malaria. The agency supported indoor spraying with DDT and other insect poisons until the early 1980s. It stopped as health and environmental concerns about DDT increased.
But last Friday, an assistant director-general of the United Nations agency announced a policy change. Doctor Asamoa-Baah said indoor spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. He also stressed that DDT presents on health risk when used correctly.
The WHO says it supports indoor spraying in areas with high malaria rates, including throughout Africa. But its malaria program director, Arata Kochi, says DDT should be used only inside houses and huts, not outside and not for agriculture use.
In the 1940s DDT was found to be an excellent way to control insects. It cost little to produce and was not found to harm humans. So it was widely used for people and crops.
In the 1960s, environmentalist Rachel Carson and her book "Silent Spring" led to a movement to ban it. The United States did just that a decade later.
Yet the rise of malaria has led some environmental groups to change their thinking. The group Environmental Defense, which led the anti-DDT movement, now supports indoor use to control malaria.
But many critics of DDT worry it will not be used with great care. University of Illinois scientist May Berenbaum argues that DDT is not as effective as people might think. Writing in the Washington Post, she noted that some African mosquitoes developed resistance to it. She says DDT should be only one tool among many for insect control.
The WHO supports other interventions as well. But it says India sharply cut malaria rates in the past with indoor use of DDT. And ten countries in southern Africa are currently using it for malaria control. | 984.txt | 2 |
[
"About the harm DDT does to humans.",
"About DDT in the water from a spring.",
"About DDT in the water used for controlling insects.",
"About DDT used for people and crops."
] | What do you think the book "Silent Spring" is about? | The World Health Organization now supports the use of DDT in homes to control malaria. The agency supported indoor spraying with DDT and other insect poisons until the early 1980s. It stopped as health and environmental concerns about DDT increased.
But last Friday, an assistant director-general of the United Nations agency announced a policy change. Doctor Asamoa-Baah said indoor spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. He also stressed that DDT presents on health risk when used correctly.
The WHO says it supports indoor spraying in areas with high malaria rates, including throughout Africa. But its malaria program director, Arata Kochi, says DDT should be used only inside houses and huts, not outside and not for agriculture use.
In the 1940s DDT was found to be an excellent way to control insects. It cost little to produce and was not found to harm humans. So it was widely used for people and crops.
In the 1960s, environmentalist Rachel Carson and her book "Silent Spring" led to a movement to ban it. The United States did just that a decade later.
Yet the rise of malaria has led some environmental groups to change their thinking. The group Environmental Defense, which led the anti-DDT movement, now supports indoor use to control malaria.
But many critics of DDT worry it will not be used with great care. University of Illinois scientist May Berenbaum argues that DDT is not as effective as people might think. Writing in the Washington Post, she noted that some African mosquitoes developed resistance to it. She says DDT should be only one tool among many for insect control.
The WHO supports other interventions as well. But it says India sharply cut malaria rates in the past with indoor use of DDT. And ten countries in southern Africa are currently using it for malaria control. | 984.txt | 0 |
[
"DDT may be harmful when used incorrectly.",
"Environmental Defense admits DDT can control malaria.",
"DDT may be harmful to the environment and crops.",
"All scientists agree to spray DDT indoors now."
] | Which of the following is not true? | The World Health Organization now supports the use of DDT in homes to control malaria. The agency supported indoor spraying with DDT and other insect poisons until the early 1980s. It stopped as health and environmental concerns about DDT increased.
But last Friday, an assistant director-general of the United Nations agency announced a policy change. Doctor Asamoa-Baah said indoor spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. He also stressed that DDT presents on health risk when used correctly.
The WHO says it supports indoor spraying in areas with high malaria rates, including throughout Africa. But its malaria program director, Arata Kochi, says DDT should be used only inside houses and huts, not outside and not for agriculture use.
In the 1940s DDT was found to be an excellent way to control insects. It cost little to produce and was not found to harm humans. So it was widely used for people and crops.
In the 1960s, environmentalist Rachel Carson and her book "Silent Spring" led to a movement to ban it. The United States did just that a decade later.
Yet the rise of malaria has led some environmental groups to change their thinking. The group Environmental Defense, which led the anti-DDT movement, now supports indoor use to control malaria.
But many critics of DDT worry it will not be used with great care. University of Illinois scientist May Berenbaum argues that DDT is not as effective as people might think. Writing in the Washington Post, she noted that some African mosquitoes developed resistance to it. She says DDT should be only one tool among many for insect control.
The WHO supports other interventions as well. But it says India sharply cut malaria rates in the past with indoor use of DDT. And ten countries in southern Africa are currently using it for malaria control. | 984.txt | 3 |
[
"\"The use of DDT\"",
"\"Mosquito\"",
"\"The WHO\"",
"\"Malaria\""
] | What does the word "It" in the last sentence of Para. 1 refer to? | The World Health Organization now supports the use of DDT in homes to control malaria. The agency supported indoor spraying with DDT and other insect poisons until the early 1980s. It stopped as health and environmental concerns about DDT increased.
But last Friday, an assistant director-general of the United Nations agency announced a policy change. Doctor Asamoa-Baah said indoor spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. He also stressed that DDT presents on health risk when used correctly.
The WHO says it supports indoor spraying in areas with high malaria rates, including throughout Africa. But its malaria program director, Arata Kochi, says DDT should be used only inside houses and huts, not outside and not for agriculture use.
In the 1940s DDT was found to be an excellent way to control insects. It cost little to produce and was not found to harm humans. So it was widely used for people and crops.
In the 1960s, environmentalist Rachel Carson and her book "Silent Spring" led to a movement to ban it. The United States did just that a decade later.
Yet the rise of malaria has led some environmental groups to change their thinking. The group Environmental Defense, which led the anti-DDT movement, now supports indoor use to control malaria.
But many critics of DDT worry it will not be used with great care. University of Illinois scientist May Berenbaum argues that DDT is not as effective as people might think. Writing in the Washington Post, she noted that some African mosquitoes developed resistance to it. She says DDT should be only one tool among many for insect control.
The WHO supports other interventions as well. But it says India sharply cut malaria rates in the past with indoor use of DDT. And ten countries in southern Africa are currently using it for malaria control. | 984.txt | 0 |
[
"People's knowledge of a thing is always developing.",
"DDT is very useful.",
"There are many tools to control malaria.",
"India has never stopped using DDT."
] | What can you infer from the passage? | The World Health Organization now supports the use of DDT in homes to control malaria. The agency supported indoor spraying with DDT and other insect poisons until the early 1980s. It stopped as health and environmental concerns about DDT increased.
But last Friday, an assistant director-general of the United Nations agency announced a policy change. Doctor Asamoa-Baah said indoor spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. He also stressed that DDT presents on health risk when used correctly.
The WHO says it supports indoor spraying in areas with high malaria rates, including throughout Africa. But its malaria program director, Arata Kochi, says DDT should be used only inside houses and huts, not outside and not for agriculture use.
In the 1940s DDT was found to be an excellent way to control insects. It cost little to produce and was not found to harm humans. So it was widely used for people and crops.
In the 1960s, environmentalist Rachel Carson and her book "Silent Spring" led to a movement to ban it. The United States did just that a decade later.
Yet the rise of malaria has led some environmental groups to change their thinking. The group Environmental Defense, which led the anti-DDT movement, now supports indoor use to control malaria.
But many critics of DDT worry it will not be used with great care. University of Illinois scientist May Berenbaum argues that DDT is not as effective as people might think. Writing in the Washington Post, she noted that some African mosquitoes developed resistance to it. She says DDT should be only one tool among many for insect control.
The WHO supports other interventions as well. But it says India sharply cut malaria rates in the past with indoor use of DDT. And ten countries in southern Africa are currently using it for malaria control. | 984.txt | 0 |
[
"new computers had been installed in the buildings",
"it occurred in the residential areas rather than on the highways",
"large numbers of Los Angeles residents had gone for a holiday",
"improvements had been made in the construction of buildings and highways"
] | One reason why the loss of lives in the Los Angeles earthquake was comparatively low is that _ . | After the violent earthquake that shook Los Angeles in 1994, earthquake scientists had good news to report: The damage and death toll could have been much worse.
More than 60 people died in this earthquake. By comparison, as earthquake of similar intensity that shook America in 1988 claimed 25,000 victims.
Injuries and deaths were relatively less in Los Angeles because the quake occurred at 4:31 a.m. on a holiday, when traffic was light on the city's highways. In addition, changes made to the construction codes in Los Angeles during the last 20 years have strengthened the city's buildings and highways, making them more resistant to quakes.
Despite the good new, civil engineers aren't resting on their successes. Pinned to their drawing boards are blueprints for improved quake-resistant buildings. The new designs should offer even greater security to cities where earthquakes often take place.
In the past, making structures quake-resistant meant firm yet flexible materials, such as steel and wood, that bend without breaking. Later, people tried to lift a building off its foundation, and insert rubber and steel between the building and its foundation to reduce the impact of ground vibrations. The most recent designs give buildings brains as well as concrete and steel supports. Called smart buildings, the structures respond like living organisms to an earthquake's vibrations. When the ground shakes and the building tips forward, the computer would force the building to shift in the opposite direction.
The new smart structures could be very expensive to build. However, they would save many lives and would be less likely to be damaged during earthquakes. | 3072.txt | 3 |
[
"counterbalance an earthquake's action on the building",
"predict the coming of an earthquake with accuracy",
"help strengthen the foundation of the building",
"measure the impact of an earthquake's vibrations"
] | The function of the computer mentioned in the passage is to _ . | After the violent earthquake that shook Los Angeles in 1994, earthquake scientists had good news to report: The damage and death toll could have been much worse.
More than 60 people died in this earthquake. By comparison, as earthquake of similar intensity that shook America in 1988 claimed 25,000 victims.
Injuries and deaths were relatively less in Los Angeles because the quake occurred at 4:31 a.m. on a holiday, when traffic was light on the city's highways. In addition, changes made to the construction codes in Los Angeles during the last 20 years have strengthened the city's buildings and highways, making them more resistant to quakes.
Despite the good new, civil engineers aren't resting on their successes. Pinned to their drawing boards are blueprints for improved quake-resistant buildings. The new designs should offer even greater security to cities where earthquakes often take place.
In the past, making structures quake-resistant meant firm yet flexible materials, such as steel and wood, that bend without breaking. Later, people tried to lift a building off its foundation, and insert rubber and steel between the building and its foundation to reduce the impact of ground vibrations. The most recent designs give buildings brains as well as concrete and steel supports. Called smart buildings, the structures respond like living organisms to an earthquake's vibrations. When the ground shakes and the building tips forward, the computer would force the building to shift in the opposite direction.
The new smart structures could be very expensive to build. However, they would save many lives and would be less likely to be damaged during earthquakes. | 3072.txt | 0 |
[
"would cause serious financial problems",
"would be worthwhile though costly",
"would increase the complexity of architectural design",
"can reduce the ground vibrations caused by earthquakes"
] | The smart buildings discussed in the passage _ . | After the violent earthquake that shook Los Angeles in 1994, earthquake scientists had good news to report: The damage and death toll could have been much worse.
More than 60 people died in this earthquake. By comparison, as earthquake of similar intensity that shook America in 1988 claimed 25,000 victims.
Injuries and deaths were relatively less in Los Angeles because the quake occurred at 4:31 a.m. on a holiday, when traffic was light on the city's highways. In addition, changes made to the construction codes in Los Angeles during the last 20 years have strengthened the city's buildings and highways, making them more resistant to quakes.
Despite the good new, civil engineers aren't resting on their successes. Pinned to their drawing boards are blueprints for improved quake-resistant buildings. The new designs should offer even greater security to cities where earthquakes often take place.
In the past, making structures quake-resistant meant firm yet flexible materials, such as steel and wood, that bend without breaking. Later, people tried to lift a building off its foundation, and insert rubber and steel between the building and its foundation to reduce the impact of ground vibrations. The most recent designs give buildings brains as well as concrete and steel supports. Called smart buildings, the structures respond like living organisms to an earthquake's vibrations. When the ground shakes and the building tips forward, the computer would force the building to shift in the opposite direction.
The new smart structures could be very expensive to build. However, they would save many lives and would be less likely to be damaged during earthquakes. | 3072.txt | 1 |
[
"the increasing use of rubber and steel in capital construction",
"the development of flexible building materials",
"the reduction of the impact of ground vibrations",
"early forecasts of earthquakes"
] | It can be inferred from the passage that in minimizing the damage caused by earthquakes attention should be focused on _ . | After the violent earthquake that shook Los Angeles in 1994, earthquake scientists had good news to report: The damage and death toll could have been much worse.
More than 60 people died in this earthquake. By comparison, as earthquake of similar intensity that shook America in 1988 claimed 25,000 victims.
Injuries and deaths were relatively less in Los Angeles because the quake occurred at 4:31 a.m. on a holiday, when traffic was light on the city's highways. In addition, changes made to the construction codes in Los Angeles during the last 20 years have strengthened the city's buildings and highways, making them more resistant to quakes.
Despite the good new, civil engineers aren't resting on their successes. Pinned to their drawing boards are blueprints for improved quake-resistant buildings. The new designs should offer even greater security to cities where earthquakes often take place.
In the past, making structures quake-resistant meant firm yet flexible materials, such as steel and wood, that bend without breaking. Later, people tried to lift a building off its foundation, and insert rubber and steel between the building and its foundation to reduce the impact of ground vibrations. The most recent designs give buildings brains as well as concrete and steel supports. Called smart buildings, the structures respond like living organisms to an earthquake's vibrations. When the ground shakes and the building tips forward, the computer would force the building to shift in the opposite direction.
The new smart structures could be very expensive to build. However, they would save many lives and would be less likely to be damaged during earthquakes. | 3072.txt | 2 |
[
"compare the consequences of the earthquakes that occurred in the U.S.",
"encourage civil engineers to make more extensive use of computers",
"outline the history of the development of quake-resistant building materials",
"report new developments in constructing quake-resistant buildings"
] | The author's main purpose in writing the passage is to _ . | After the violent earthquake that shook Los Angeles in 1994, earthquake scientists had good news to report: The damage and death toll could have been much worse.
More than 60 people died in this earthquake. By comparison, as earthquake of similar intensity that shook America in 1988 claimed 25,000 victims.
Injuries and deaths were relatively less in Los Angeles because the quake occurred at 4:31 a.m. on a holiday, when traffic was light on the city's highways. In addition, changes made to the construction codes in Los Angeles during the last 20 years have strengthened the city's buildings and highways, making them more resistant to quakes.
Despite the good new, civil engineers aren't resting on their successes. Pinned to their drawing boards are blueprints for improved quake-resistant buildings. The new designs should offer even greater security to cities where earthquakes often take place.
In the past, making structures quake-resistant meant firm yet flexible materials, such as steel and wood, that bend without breaking. Later, people tried to lift a building off its foundation, and insert rubber and steel between the building and its foundation to reduce the impact of ground vibrations. The most recent designs give buildings brains as well as concrete and steel supports. Called smart buildings, the structures respond like living organisms to an earthquake's vibrations. When the ground shakes and the building tips forward, the computer would force the building to shift in the opposite direction.
The new smart structures could be very expensive to build. However, they would save many lives and would be less likely to be damaged during earthquakes. | 3072.txt | 3 |
[
"It further widens the gap between the old and the young.",
"It often leads to innovations in other related fields.",
"It contributes greatly to the advance of society as a whole.",
"It usually draws different reactions from different age groups."
] | What happens when a new technology emerges? | Attitudes toward new technologies often fall along generational lines. That is, generally, younger people tend to outnumber older people on the front end of a technological shift.
It is not always the case, though. When you look at attitudes toward driverless cars, there doesn't seem to be a clear generational divide. The public overall is split on whether they'd like to use a driverless car. In a study last year, of all people surveyed, 48 percent said they wanted to ride in one, while 50 percent did not.
The fact that attitudes toward self-driving cars appear to be so steady across generations suggests how transformative the shift to driverless cars could be. Not everyone wants a driverless car now-and no one can get one yet-but among those who are open to them, every age group is similarly engaged.
Actually, this isn't surprising. Whereas older generations are sometimes reluctant to adopt new technologies, driverless cars promise real value to these age groups in particular. Older adults, especially those with limited mobility or difficulty driving on their own, are one of the classic use cases for driverless cars.
This is especially interesting when you consider that younger people are generally more interested in travel-related technologies than older ones.
When it comes to driverless cars, differences in attitude are more pronounced based on factors not related to age. College graduates, for example, are particularly interested in driverless cars compared with those who have less education: 59 percent of college graduates said they would like to use a driverless car compared with 38 percent of those with a high-school diploma or less.
Where a person lives matters, too. More people who lives in cities and suburbs said they wanted to try driverless cars than those who lived in rural areas.
While there's reason to believe that interest in self-driving cars is going up across the board, a person's age will have little to do with how self-driving cars can become mainstream. Once driverless cares are actually available for sale, the early adopters will be the people who can afford to buy them. | 2249.txt | 3 |
[
"It does not seem to create a generational divide.",
"It will not necessarily reduce road accidents.",
"It may start a revolution in the car industry.",
"It has given rise to unrealistic expectations."
] | What does the author say about the driverless car? | Attitudes toward new technologies often fall along generational lines. That is, generally, younger people tend to outnumber older people on the front end of a technological shift.
It is not always the case, though. When you look at attitudes toward driverless cars, there doesn't seem to be a clear generational divide. The public overall is split on whether they'd like to use a driverless car. In a study last year, of all people surveyed, 48 percent said they wanted to ride in one, while 50 percent did not.
The fact that attitudes toward self-driving cars appear to be so steady across generations suggests how transformative the shift to driverless cars could be. Not everyone wants a driverless car now-and no one can get one yet-but among those who are open to them, every age group is similarly engaged.
Actually, this isn't surprising. Whereas older generations are sometimes reluctant to adopt new technologies, driverless cars promise real value to these age groups in particular. Older adults, especially those with limited mobility or difficulty driving on their own, are one of the classic use cases for driverless cars.
This is especially interesting when you consider that younger people are generally more interested in travel-related technologies than older ones.
When it comes to driverless cars, differences in attitude are more pronounced based on factors not related to age. College graduates, for example, are particularly interested in driverless cars compared with those who have less education: 59 percent of college graduates said they would like to use a driverless car compared with 38 percent of those with a high-school diploma or less.
Where a person lives matters, too. More people who lives in cities and suburbs said they wanted to try driverless cars than those who lived in rural areas.
While there's reason to believe that interest in self-driving cars is going up across the board, a person's age will have little to do with how self-driving cars can become mainstream. Once driverless cares are actually available for sale, the early adopters will be the people who can afford to buy them. | 2249.txt | 0 |
[
"It saves their energy.",
"It helps with their mobility.",
"It adds to the safety of their travel.",
"It stirs up their interest in life."
] | Why does the driverless car appeal to some old people? | Attitudes toward new technologies often fall along generational lines. That is, generally, younger people tend to outnumber older people on the front end of a technological shift.
It is not always the case, though. When you look at attitudes toward driverless cars, there doesn't seem to be a clear generational divide. The public overall is split on whether they'd like to use a driverless car. In a study last year, of all people surveyed, 48 percent said they wanted to ride in one, while 50 percent did not.
The fact that attitudes toward self-driving cars appear to be so steady across generations suggests how transformative the shift to driverless cars could be. Not everyone wants a driverless car now-and no one can get one yet-but among those who are open to them, every age group is similarly engaged.
Actually, this isn't surprising. Whereas older generations are sometimes reluctant to adopt new technologies, driverless cars promise real value to these age groups in particular. Older adults, especially those with limited mobility or difficulty driving on their own, are one of the classic use cases for driverless cars.
This is especially interesting when you consider that younger people are generally more interested in travel-related technologies than older ones.
When it comes to driverless cars, differences in attitude are more pronounced based on factors not related to age. College graduates, for example, are particularly interested in driverless cars compared with those who have less education: 59 percent of college graduates said they would like to use a driverless car compared with 38 percent of those with a high-school diploma or less.
Where a person lives matters, too. More people who lives in cities and suburbs said they wanted to try driverless cars than those who lived in rural areas.
While there's reason to believe that interest in self-driving cars is going up across the board, a person's age will have little to do with how self-driving cars can become mainstream. Once driverless cares are actually available for sale, the early adopters will be the people who can afford to buy them. | 2249.txt | 1 |
[
"The location of their residence.",
"The field of their special interest",
"The amount of training they received.",
"The length of their driving experience."
] | What is likely to affect one's attitude toward the driverless car? | Attitudes toward new technologies often fall along generational lines. That is, generally, younger people tend to outnumber older people on the front end of a technological shift.
It is not always the case, though. When you look at attitudes toward driverless cars, there doesn't seem to be a clear generational divide. The public overall is split on whether they'd like to use a driverless car. In a study last year, of all people surveyed, 48 percent said they wanted to ride in one, while 50 percent did not.
The fact that attitudes toward self-driving cars appear to be so steady across generations suggests how transformative the shift to driverless cars could be. Not everyone wants a driverless car now-and no one can get one yet-but among those who are open to them, every age group is similarly engaged.
Actually, this isn't surprising. Whereas older generations are sometimes reluctant to adopt new technologies, driverless cars promise real value to these age groups in particular. Older adults, especially those with limited mobility or difficulty driving on their own, are one of the classic use cases for driverless cars.
This is especially interesting when you consider that younger people are generally more interested in travel-related technologies than older ones.
When it comes to driverless cars, differences in attitude are more pronounced based on factors not related to age. College graduates, for example, are particularly interested in driverless cars compared with those who have less education: 59 percent of college graduates said they would like to use a driverless car compared with 38 percent of those with a high-school diploma or less.
Where a person lives matters, too. More people who lives in cities and suburbs said they wanted to try driverless cars than those who lived in rural areas.
While there's reason to believe that interest in self-driving cars is going up across the board, a person's age will have little to do with how self-driving cars can become mainstream. Once driverless cares are actually available for sale, the early adopters will be the people who can afford to buy them. | 2249.txt | 0 |
[
"The senior.",
"The educated.",
"The wealthy.",
"The tech fans."
] | Who are likely to be the first to buy the driverless car? | Attitudes toward new technologies often fall along generational lines. That is, generally, younger people tend to outnumber older people on the front end of a technological shift.
It is not always the case, though. When you look at attitudes toward driverless cars, there doesn't seem to be a clear generational divide. The public overall is split on whether they'd like to use a driverless car. In a study last year, of all people surveyed, 48 percent said they wanted to ride in one, while 50 percent did not.
The fact that attitudes toward self-driving cars appear to be so steady across generations suggests how transformative the shift to driverless cars could be. Not everyone wants a driverless car now-and no one can get one yet-but among those who are open to them, every age group is similarly engaged.
Actually, this isn't surprising. Whereas older generations are sometimes reluctant to adopt new technologies, driverless cars promise real value to these age groups in particular. Older adults, especially those with limited mobility or difficulty driving on their own, are one of the classic use cases for driverless cars.
This is especially interesting when you consider that younger people are generally more interested in travel-related technologies than older ones.
When it comes to driverless cars, differences in attitude are more pronounced based on factors not related to age. College graduates, for example, are particularly interested in driverless cars compared with those who have less education: 59 percent of college graduates said they would like to use a driverless car compared with 38 percent of those with a high-school diploma or less.
Where a person lives matters, too. More people who lives in cities and suburbs said they wanted to try driverless cars than those who lived in rural areas.
While there's reason to believe that interest in self-driving cars is going up across the board, a person's age will have little to do with how self-driving cars can become mainstream. Once driverless cares are actually available for sale, the early adopters will be the people who can afford to buy them. | 2249.txt | 2 |
[
"Terrestrial planets are closer to the Sun than Jovian planets.",
"Terrestrial planets have smaller diameters than Jovian planets.",
"Terrestrial planets have smaller masses than Jovian planets.",
"Terrestrial planets travel in a different direction than Jovian planets do."
] | According to the passage, each of the following statements comparing terrestrial planets with Jovian planets is true EXCEPT: | The Sun is the hub of a huge rotating system consisting of nine planets, their satellites, and numerous small bodies, including asteroids, comets, and meteoroids. An estimated 99.85 percent of the mass of our solar system is contained within the Sun, while the planets collectively make up most of the remaining 0.15 percent. The planets, in order of their distance from the Sun, are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Under the control of the Sun's gravitational force, each planet maintains an elliptical orbit and all of them travel in the same direction.
The planets in our solar system fall into two groups: the terrestrial (Earth-like) planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) and the Jovian (Jupiter-like) planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). Pluto is not included in either category, because its great distance from Earth and its small size make this planet's true nature a mystery.
The most obvious difference between the terrestrial and the Jovian planets is their size. The largest terrestrial planet, Earth has a diameter only one quarter as great as the diameter of the smallest Jovian planet, Neptune, and its mass is only one seventeenth as great. Hence, the Jovian planets are often called giants. Also, because of their relative locations, the four Jovian planets are known as the outer planets, while the terrestrial planets are known as the inner planets. There appears to be a correlation between the positions of these planets and their sizes.
Other dimensions along which the two groups differ markedly are density and composition. The densities of the terrestrial planets average about 5 times the density of water, whereas the Jovian planets have densities that average only 1.5 times the density of water. One of the outer planets, Saturn, has a density of only 0.7 that of water, which means that Saturn would float in water. Variations in the composition of the planets are largely responsible for the density differences. The substances that make up both groups of planets are divided into three groups-gases, rocks, and ices-based on their melting points. The terrestrial planets are mostly rocks: dense rocky and metallic material, with minor amounts of gases. The Jovian planets, on the other hand, contain a large percentage of the gases hydrogen and helium, with varying amounts of ices: mostly water, ammonia, and methane ices.
The Jovian planets have very thick atmospheres consisting of varying amounts of hydrogen, helium, methane, and ammonia. By comparison, the terrestrial planets have meager atmospheres at best. A planet's ability to retain an atmosphere depends on its temperature and mass. Simply stated, a gas molecule can "evaporate" from a planet if it reaches a speed known as the escape velocity. For Earth, this velocity is 11 kilometers per second. Any material, including a rocket, must reach this speed before it can leave Earth and go into space. The Jovian planets, because of their greater masses and thus higher surface gravities, have higher escape velocities (21-60 kilometers per seconD. than the terrestrial planets. Consequently, it is more difficult for gases to "evaporate" from them. Also, because the molecular motion of a gas depends on temperature, at the low temperatures of the Jovian planets even the lightest gases are unlikely to acquire the speed needed to escape. On the other hand, a comparatively warm body with a small surface gravity, like Earth's moon, is unable to hold even the heaviest gas and thus lacks an atmosphere. The slightly larger terrestrial planets Earth, Venus, and Mars retain some heavy gases like carbon dioxide, but even their atmospheres make up only an infinitesimally small portion of their total mass.
The orderly nature of our solar system leads most astronomers to conclude that the planets formed at essentially the same time and from the same material as the Sun. It is hypothesized that the primordial cloud of dust and gas from which all the planets are thought to have condensed had a composition somewhat similar to that of Jupiter. However, unlike Jupiter, the terrestrial planets today are nearly void of light gases and ices. The explanation may be that the terrestrial planets were once much larger and richer in these materials but eventually lost them because of these bodies' relative closeness to the Sun, which meant that their temperatures were relatively high. | 671.txt | 3 |
[
"Essentially",
"Typically",
"Consistently",
"Noticeably"
] | The word markedly in the passage (paragraph 4) is closest in meaning to | The Sun is the hub of a huge rotating system consisting of nine planets, their satellites, and numerous small bodies, including asteroids, comets, and meteoroids. An estimated 99.85 percent of the mass of our solar system is contained within the Sun, while the planets collectively make up most of the remaining 0.15 percent. The planets, in order of their distance from the Sun, are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Under the control of the Sun's gravitational force, each planet maintains an elliptical orbit and all of them travel in the same direction.
The planets in our solar system fall into two groups: the terrestrial (Earth-like) planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) and the Jovian (Jupiter-like) planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). Pluto is not included in either category, because its great distance from Earth and its small size make this planet's true nature a mystery.
The most obvious difference between the terrestrial and the Jovian planets is their size. The largest terrestrial planet, Earth has a diameter only one quarter as great as the diameter of the smallest Jovian planet, Neptune, and its mass is only one seventeenth as great. Hence, the Jovian planets are often called giants. Also, because of their relative locations, the four Jovian planets are known as the outer planets, while the terrestrial planets are known as the inner planets. There appears to be a correlation between the positions of these planets and their sizes.
Other dimensions along which the two groups differ markedly are density and composition. The densities of the terrestrial planets average about 5 times the density of water, whereas the Jovian planets have densities that average only 1.5 times the density of water. One of the outer planets, Saturn, has a density of only 0.7 that of water, which means that Saturn would float in water. Variations in the composition of the planets are largely responsible for the density differences. The substances that make up both groups of planets are divided into three groups-gases, rocks, and ices-based on their melting points. The terrestrial planets are mostly rocks: dense rocky and metallic material, with minor amounts of gases. The Jovian planets, on the other hand, contain a large percentage of the gases hydrogen and helium, with varying amounts of ices: mostly water, ammonia, and methane ices.
The Jovian planets have very thick atmospheres consisting of varying amounts of hydrogen, helium, methane, and ammonia. By comparison, the terrestrial planets have meager atmospheres at best. A planet's ability to retain an atmosphere depends on its temperature and mass. Simply stated, a gas molecule can "evaporate" from a planet if it reaches a speed known as the escape velocity. For Earth, this velocity is 11 kilometers per second. Any material, including a rocket, must reach this speed before it can leave Earth and go into space. The Jovian planets, because of their greater masses and thus higher surface gravities, have higher escape velocities (21-60 kilometers per seconD. than the terrestrial planets. Consequently, it is more difficult for gases to "evaporate" from them. Also, because the molecular motion of a gas depends on temperature, at the low temperatures of the Jovian planets even the lightest gases are unlikely to acquire the speed needed to escape. On the other hand, a comparatively warm body with a small surface gravity, like Earth's moon, is unable to hold even the heaviest gas and thus lacks an atmosphere. The slightly larger terrestrial planets Earth, Venus, and Mars retain some heavy gases like carbon dioxide, but even their atmospheres make up only an infinitesimally small portion of their total mass.
The orderly nature of our solar system leads most astronomers to conclude that the planets formed at essentially the same time and from the same material as the Sun. It is hypothesized that the primordial cloud of dust and gas from which all the planets are thought to have condensed had a composition somewhat similar to that of Jupiter. However, unlike Jupiter, the terrestrial planets today are nearly void of light gases and ices. The explanation may be that the terrestrial planets were once much larger and richer in these materials but eventually lost them because of these bodies' relative closeness to the Sun, which meant that their temperatures were relatively high. | 671.txt | 3 |
[
"They are made up of three groups of substances.",
"They are composed mainly of rocky and metallic materials.",
"They contain more ice than Jovian planets.",
"They contain relatively small amounts of water."
] | Paragraph 4 mentions which of the following as a reason why terrestrial planets are dense? | The Sun is the hub of a huge rotating system consisting of nine planets, their satellites, and numerous small bodies, including asteroids, comets, and meteoroids. An estimated 99.85 percent of the mass of our solar system is contained within the Sun, while the planets collectively make up most of the remaining 0.15 percent. The planets, in order of their distance from the Sun, are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Under the control of the Sun's gravitational force, each planet maintains an elliptical orbit and all of them travel in the same direction.
The planets in our solar system fall into two groups: the terrestrial (Earth-like) planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) and the Jovian (Jupiter-like) planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). Pluto is not included in either category, because its great distance from Earth and its small size make this planet's true nature a mystery.
The most obvious difference between the terrestrial and the Jovian planets is their size. The largest terrestrial planet, Earth has a diameter only one quarter as great as the diameter of the smallest Jovian planet, Neptune, and its mass is only one seventeenth as great. Hence, the Jovian planets are often called giants. Also, because of their relative locations, the four Jovian planets are known as the outer planets, while the terrestrial planets are known as the inner planets. There appears to be a correlation between the positions of these planets and their sizes.
Other dimensions along which the two groups differ markedly are density and composition. The densities of the terrestrial planets average about 5 times the density of water, whereas the Jovian planets have densities that average only 1.5 times the density of water. One of the outer planets, Saturn, has a density of only 0.7 that of water, which means that Saturn would float in water. Variations in the composition of the planets are largely responsible for the density differences. The substances that make up both groups of planets are divided into three groups-gases, rocks, and ices-based on their melting points. The terrestrial planets are mostly rocks: dense rocky and metallic material, with minor amounts of gases. The Jovian planets, on the other hand, contain a large percentage of the gases hydrogen and helium, with varying amounts of ices: mostly water, ammonia, and methane ices.
The Jovian planets have very thick atmospheres consisting of varying amounts of hydrogen, helium, methane, and ammonia. By comparison, the terrestrial planets have meager atmospheres at best. A planet's ability to retain an atmosphere depends on its temperature and mass. Simply stated, a gas molecule can "evaporate" from a planet if it reaches a speed known as the escape velocity. For Earth, this velocity is 11 kilometers per second. Any material, including a rocket, must reach this speed before it can leave Earth and go into space. The Jovian planets, because of their greater masses and thus higher surface gravities, have higher escape velocities (21-60 kilometers per seconD. than the terrestrial planets. Consequently, it is more difficult for gases to "evaporate" from them. Also, because the molecular motion of a gas depends on temperature, at the low temperatures of the Jovian planets even the lightest gases are unlikely to acquire the speed needed to escape. On the other hand, a comparatively warm body with a small surface gravity, like Earth's moon, is unable to hold even the heaviest gas and thus lacks an atmosphere. The slightly larger terrestrial planets Earth, Venus, and Mars retain some heavy gases like carbon dioxide, but even their atmospheres make up only an infinitesimally small portion of their total mass.
The orderly nature of our solar system leads most astronomers to conclude that the planets formed at essentially the same time and from the same material as the Sun. It is hypothesized that the primordial cloud of dust and gas from which all the planets are thought to have condensed had a composition somewhat similar to that of Jupiter. However, unlike Jupiter, the terrestrial planets today are nearly void of light gases and ices. The explanation may be that the terrestrial planets were once much larger and richer in these materials but eventually lost them because of these bodies' relative closeness to the Sun, which meant that their temperatures were relatively high. | 671.txt | 1 |
[
"It is less dense than any of the terrestrial planets.",
"It contains no rocky material.",
"It contains ices.",
"It contains a large percentage of gases."
] | Paragraph 4 supports each of the following statements about Saturn EXCEPT: | The Sun is the hub of a huge rotating system consisting of nine planets, their satellites, and numerous small bodies, including asteroids, comets, and meteoroids. An estimated 99.85 percent of the mass of our solar system is contained within the Sun, while the planets collectively make up most of the remaining 0.15 percent. The planets, in order of their distance from the Sun, are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Under the control of the Sun's gravitational force, each planet maintains an elliptical orbit and all of them travel in the same direction.
The planets in our solar system fall into two groups: the terrestrial (Earth-like) planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) and the Jovian (Jupiter-like) planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). Pluto is not included in either category, because its great distance from Earth and its small size make this planet's true nature a mystery.
The most obvious difference between the terrestrial and the Jovian planets is their size. The largest terrestrial planet, Earth has a diameter only one quarter as great as the diameter of the smallest Jovian planet, Neptune, and its mass is only one seventeenth as great. Hence, the Jovian planets are often called giants. Also, because of their relative locations, the four Jovian planets are known as the outer planets, while the terrestrial planets are known as the inner planets. There appears to be a correlation between the positions of these planets and their sizes.
Other dimensions along which the two groups differ markedly are density and composition. The densities of the terrestrial planets average about 5 times the density of water, whereas the Jovian planets have densities that average only 1.5 times the density of water. One of the outer planets, Saturn, has a density of only 0.7 that of water, which means that Saturn would float in water. Variations in the composition of the planets are largely responsible for the density differences. The substances that make up both groups of planets are divided into three groups-gases, rocks, and ices-based on their melting points. The terrestrial planets are mostly rocks: dense rocky and metallic material, with minor amounts of gases. The Jovian planets, on the other hand, contain a large percentage of the gases hydrogen and helium, with varying amounts of ices: mostly water, ammonia, and methane ices.
The Jovian planets have very thick atmospheres consisting of varying amounts of hydrogen, helium, methane, and ammonia. By comparison, the terrestrial planets have meager atmospheres at best. A planet's ability to retain an atmosphere depends on its temperature and mass. Simply stated, a gas molecule can "evaporate" from a planet if it reaches a speed known as the escape velocity. For Earth, this velocity is 11 kilometers per second. Any material, including a rocket, must reach this speed before it can leave Earth and go into space. The Jovian planets, because of their greater masses and thus higher surface gravities, have higher escape velocities (21-60 kilometers per seconD. than the terrestrial planets. Consequently, it is more difficult for gases to "evaporate" from them. Also, because the molecular motion of a gas depends on temperature, at the low temperatures of the Jovian planets even the lightest gases are unlikely to acquire the speed needed to escape. On the other hand, a comparatively warm body with a small surface gravity, like Earth's moon, is unable to hold even the heaviest gas and thus lacks an atmosphere. The slightly larger terrestrial planets Earth, Venus, and Mars retain some heavy gases like carbon dioxide, but even their atmospheres make up only an infinitesimally small portion of their total mass.
The orderly nature of our solar system leads most astronomers to conclude that the planets formed at essentially the same time and from the same material as the Sun. It is hypothesized that the primordial cloud of dust and gas from which all the planets are thought to have condensed had a composition somewhat similar to that of Jupiter. However, unlike Jupiter, the terrestrial planets today are nearly void of light gases and ices. The explanation may be that the terrestrial planets were once much larger and richer in these materials but eventually lost them because of these bodies' relative closeness to the Sun, which meant that their temperatures were relatively high. | 671.txt | 1 |
[
"rich",
"thin",
"unique",
"complex"
] | The word meager in the passage (paragraph 5) is closest in meaning to | The Sun is the hub of a huge rotating system consisting of nine planets, their satellites, and numerous small bodies, including asteroids, comets, and meteoroids. An estimated 99.85 percent of the mass of our solar system is contained within the Sun, while the planets collectively make up most of the remaining 0.15 percent. The planets, in order of their distance from the Sun, are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Under the control of the Sun's gravitational force, each planet maintains an elliptical orbit and all of them travel in the same direction.
The planets in our solar system fall into two groups: the terrestrial (Earth-like) planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) and the Jovian (Jupiter-like) planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). Pluto is not included in either category, because its great distance from Earth and its small size make this planet's true nature a mystery.
The most obvious difference between the terrestrial and the Jovian planets is their size. The largest terrestrial planet, Earth has a diameter only one quarter as great as the diameter of the smallest Jovian planet, Neptune, and its mass is only one seventeenth as great. Hence, the Jovian planets are often called giants. Also, because of their relative locations, the four Jovian planets are known as the outer planets, while the terrestrial planets are known as the inner planets. There appears to be a correlation between the positions of these planets and their sizes.
Other dimensions along which the two groups differ markedly are density and composition. The densities of the terrestrial planets average about 5 times the density of water, whereas the Jovian planets have densities that average only 1.5 times the density of water. One of the outer planets, Saturn, has a density of only 0.7 that of water, which means that Saturn would float in water. Variations in the composition of the planets are largely responsible for the density differences. The substances that make up both groups of planets are divided into three groups-gases, rocks, and ices-based on their melting points. The terrestrial planets are mostly rocks: dense rocky and metallic material, with minor amounts of gases. The Jovian planets, on the other hand, contain a large percentage of the gases hydrogen and helium, with varying amounts of ices: mostly water, ammonia, and methane ices.
The Jovian planets have very thick atmospheres consisting of varying amounts of hydrogen, helium, methane, and ammonia. By comparison, the terrestrial planets have meager atmospheres at best. A planet's ability to retain an atmosphere depends on its temperature and mass. Simply stated, a gas molecule can "evaporate" from a planet if it reaches a speed known as the escape velocity. For Earth, this velocity is 11 kilometers per second. Any material, including a rocket, must reach this speed before it can leave Earth and go into space. The Jovian planets, because of their greater masses and thus higher surface gravities, have higher escape velocities (21-60 kilometers per seconD. than the terrestrial planets. Consequently, it is more difficult for gases to "evaporate" from them. Also, because the molecular motion of a gas depends on temperature, at the low temperatures of the Jovian planets even the lightest gases are unlikely to acquire the speed needed to escape. On the other hand, a comparatively warm body with a small surface gravity, like Earth's moon, is unable to hold even the heaviest gas and thus lacks an atmosphere. The slightly larger terrestrial planets Earth, Venus, and Mars retain some heavy gases like carbon dioxide, but even their atmospheres make up only an infinitesimally small portion of their total mass.
The orderly nature of our solar system leads most astronomers to conclude that the planets formed at essentially the same time and from the same material as the Sun. It is hypothesized that the primordial cloud of dust and gas from which all the planets are thought to have condensed had a composition somewhat similar to that of Jupiter. However, unlike Jupiter, the terrestrial planets today are nearly void of light gases and ices. The explanation may be that the terrestrial planets were once much larger and richer in these materials but eventually lost them because of these bodies' relative closeness to the Sun, which meant that their temperatures were relatively high. | 671.txt | 1 |
[
"The thicker the atmosphere, the smaller the planet's mass",
"The more varied the gases in the atmosphere, the higher the temperature",
"The higher the surface gravity, the higher the escape velocity",
"The less the atmosphere contributes to the total mass, the lower the temperature"
] | According to paragraph 5, which of the following statements is true of both Jovian and terrestrial planets? | The Sun is the hub of a huge rotating system consisting of nine planets, their satellites, and numerous small bodies, including asteroids, comets, and meteoroids. An estimated 99.85 percent of the mass of our solar system is contained within the Sun, while the planets collectively make up most of the remaining 0.15 percent. The planets, in order of their distance from the Sun, are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Under the control of the Sun's gravitational force, each planet maintains an elliptical orbit and all of them travel in the same direction.
The planets in our solar system fall into two groups: the terrestrial (Earth-like) planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) and the Jovian (Jupiter-like) planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). Pluto is not included in either category, because its great distance from Earth and its small size make this planet's true nature a mystery.
The most obvious difference between the terrestrial and the Jovian planets is their size. The largest terrestrial planet, Earth has a diameter only one quarter as great as the diameter of the smallest Jovian planet, Neptune, and its mass is only one seventeenth as great. Hence, the Jovian planets are often called giants. Also, because of their relative locations, the four Jovian planets are known as the outer planets, while the terrestrial planets are known as the inner planets. There appears to be a correlation between the positions of these planets and their sizes.
Other dimensions along which the two groups differ markedly are density and composition. The densities of the terrestrial planets average about 5 times the density of water, whereas the Jovian planets have densities that average only 1.5 times the density of water. One of the outer planets, Saturn, has a density of only 0.7 that of water, which means that Saturn would float in water. Variations in the composition of the planets are largely responsible for the density differences. The substances that make up both groups of planets are divided into three groups-gases, rocks, and ices-based on their melting points. The terrestrial planets are mostly rocks: dense rocky and metallic material, with minor amounts of gases. The Jovian planets, on the other hand, contain a large percentage of the gases hydrogen and helium, with varying amounts of ices: mostly water, ammonia, and methane ices.
The Jovian planets have very thick atmospheres consisting of varying amounts of hydrogen, helium, methane, and ammonia. By comparison, the terrestrial planets have meager atmospheres at best. A planet's ability to retain an atmosphere depends on its temperature and mass. Simply stated, a gas molecule can "evaporate" from a planet if it reaches a speed known as the escape velocity. For Earth, this velocity is 11 kilometers per second. Any material, including a rocket, must reach this speed before it can leave Earth and go into space. The Jovian planets, because of their greater masses and thus higher surface gravities, have higher escape velocities (21-60 kilometers per seconD. than the terrestrial planets. Consequently, it is more difficult for gases to "evaporate" from them. Also, because the molecular motion of a gas depends on temperature, at the low temperatures of the Jovian planets even the lightest gases are unlikely to acquire the speed needed to escape. On the other hand, a comparatively warm body with a small surface gravity, like Earth's moon, is unable to hold even the heaviest gas and thus lacks an atmosphere. The slightly larger terrestrial planets Earth, Venus, and Mars retain some heavy gases like carbon dioxide, but even their atmospheres make up only an infinitesimally small portion of their total mass.
The orderly nature of our solar system leads most astronomers to conclude that the planets formed at essentially the same time and from the same material as the Sun. It is hypothesized that the primordial cloud of dust and gas from which all the planets are thought to have condensed had a composition somewhat similar to that of Jupiter. However, unlike Jupiter, the terrestrial planets today are nearly void of light gases and ices. The explanation may be that the terrestrial planets were once much larger and richer in these materials but eventually lost them because of these bodies' relative closeness to the Sun, which meant that their temperatures were relatively high. | 671.txt | 2 |
[
"Jovian planets have lower surface gravities",
"Jovian planets have lower temperatures",
"Jovian planets have lower escape velocities",
"Jovian planets' gas molecules have higher average speeds"
] | According to paragraph 5, what is a major reason that Jovian planets have much thicker atmospheres than terrestrial planets do? | The Sun is the hub of a huge rotating system consisting of nine planets, their satellites, and numerous small bodies, including asteroids, comets, and meteoroids. An estimated 99.85 percent of the mass of our solar system is contained within the Sun, while the planets collectively make up most of the remaining 0.15 percent. The planets, in order of their distance from the Sun, are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Under the control of the Sun's gravitational force, each planet maintains an elliptical orbit and all of them travel in the same direction.
The planets in our solar system fall into two groups: the terrestrial (Earth-like) planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) and the Jovian (Jupiter-like) planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). Pluto is not included in either category, because its great distance from Earth and its small size make this planet's true nature a mystery.
The most obvious difference between the terrestrial and the Jovian planets is their size. The largest terrestrial planet, Earth has a diameter only one quarter as great as the diameter of the smallest Jovian planet, Neptune, and its mass is only one seventeenth as great. Hence, the Jovian planets are often called giants. Also, because of their relative locations, the four Jovian planets are known as the outer planets, while the terrestrial planets are known as the inner planets. There appears to be a correlation between the positions of these planets and their sizes.
Other dimensions along which the two groups differ markedly are density and composition. The densities of the terrestrial planets average about 5 times the density of water, whereas the Jovian planets have densities that average only 1.5 times the density of water. One of the outer planets, Saturn, has a density of only 0.7 that of water, which means that Saturn would float in water. Variations in the composition of the planets are largely responsible for the density differences. The substances that make up both groups of planets are divided into three groups-gases, rocks, and ices-based on their melting points. The terrestrial planets are mostly rocks: dense rocky and metallic material, with minor amounts of gases. The Jovian planets, on the other hand, contain a large percentage of the gases hydrogen and helium, with varying amounts of ices: mostly water, ammonia, and methane ices.
The Jovian planets have very thick atmospheres consisting of varying amounts of hydrogen, helium, methane, and ammonia. By comparison, the terrestrial planets have meager atmospheres at best. A planet's ability to retain an atmosphere depends on its temperature and mass. Simply stated, a gas molecule can "evaporate" from a planet if it reaches a speed known as the escape velocity. For Earth, this velocity is 11 kilometers per second. Any material, including a rocket, must reach this speed before it can leave Earth and go into space. The Jovian planets, because of their greater masses and thus higher surface gravities, have higher escape velocities (21-60 kilometers per seconD. than the terrestrial planets. Consequently, it is more difficult for gases to "evaporate" from them. Also, because the molecular motion of a gas depends on temperature, at the low temperatures of the Jovian planets even the lightest gases are unlikely to acquire the speed needed to escape. On the other hand, a comparatively warm body with a small surface gravity, like Earth's moon, is unable to hold even the heaviest gas and thus lacks an atmosphere. The slightly larger terrestrial planets Earth, Venus, and Mars retain some heavy gases like carbon dioxide, but even their atmospheres make up only an infinitesimally small portion of their total mass.
The orderly nature of our solar system leads most astronomers to conclude that the planets formed at essentially the same time and from the same material as the Sun. It is hypothesized that the primordial cloud of dust and gas from which all the planets are thought to have condensed had a composition somewhat similar to that of Jupiter. However, unlike Jupiter, the terrestrial planets today are nearly void of light gases and ices. The explanation may be that the terrestrial planets were once much larger and richer in these materials but eventually lost them because of these bodies' relative closeness to the Sun, which meant that their temperatures were relatively high. | 671.txt | 1 |
[
"More-massive planets are less able to retain gases than less-massive ones.",
"Planets are more likely to retain heavy gases than light gases.",
"Jovian planets are unlikely to retain the lightest gases.",
"Only terrestrial planets have been able to retain carbon dioxide."
] | Paragraph 5 supports which of the following statements about the ability of planets to retain gases? | The Sun is the hub of a huge rotating system consisting of nine planets, their satellites, and numerous small bodies, including asteroids, comets, and meteoroids. An estimated 99.85 percent of the mass of our solar system is contained within the Sun, while the planets collectively make up most of the remaining 0.15 percent. The planets, in order of their distance from the Sun, are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Under the control of the Sun's gravitational force, each planet maintains an elliptical orbit and all of them travel in the same direction.
The planets in our solar system fall into two groups: the terrestrial (Earth-like) planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) and the Jovian (Jupiter-like) planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). Pluto is not included in either category, because its great distance from Earth and its small size make this planet's true nature a mystery.
The most obvious difference between the terrestrial and the Jovian planets is their size. The largest terrestrial planet, Earth has a diameter only one quarter as great as the diameter of the smallest Jovian planet, Neptune, and its mass is only one seventeenth as great. Hence, the Jovian planets are often called giants. Also, because of their relative locations, the four Jovian planets are known as the outer planets, while the terrestrial planets are known as the inner planets. There appears to be a correlation between the positions of these planets and their sizes.
Other dimensions along which the two groups differ markedly are density and composition. The densities of the terrestrial planets average about 5 times the density of water, whereas the Jovian planets have densities that average only 1.5 times the density of water. One of the outer planets, Saturn, has a density of only 0.7 that of water, which means that Saturn would float in water. Variations in the composition of the planets are largely responsible for the density differences. The substances that make up both groups of planets are divided into three groups-gases, rocks, and ices-based on their melting points. The terrestrial planets are mostly rocks: dense rocky and metallic material, with minor amounts of gases. The Jovian planets, on the other hand, contain a large percentage of the gases hydrogen and helium, with varying amounts of ices: mostly water, ammonia, and methane ices.
The Jovian planets have very thick atmospheres consisting of varying amounts of hydrogen, helium, methane, and ammonia. By comparison, the terrestrial planets have meager atmospheres at best. A planet's ability to retain an atmosphere depends on its temperature and mass. Simply stated, a gas molecule can "evaporate" from a planet if it reaches a speed known as the escape velocity. For Earth, this velocity is 11 kilometers per second. Any material, including a rocket, must reach this speed before it can leave Earth and go into space. The Jovian planets, because of their greater masses and thus higher surface gravities, have higher escape velocities (21-60 kilometers per seconD. than the terrestrial planets. Consequently, it is more difficult for gases to "evaporate" from them. Also, because the molecular motion of a gas depends on temperature, at the low temperatures of the Jovian planets even the lightest gases are unlikely to acquire the speed needed to escape. On the other hand, a comparatively warm body with a small surface gravity, like Earth's moon, is unable to hold even the heaviest gas and thus lacks an atmosphere. The slightly larger terrestrial planets Earth, Venus, and Mars retain some heavy gases like carbon dioxide, but even their atmospheres make up only an infinitesimally small portion of their total mass.
The orderly nature of our solar system leads most astronomers to conclude that the planets formed at essentially the same time and from the same material as the Sun. It is hypothesized that the primordial cloud of dust and gas from which all the planets are thought to have condensed had a composition somewhat similar to that of Jupiter. However, unlike Jupiter, the terrestrial planets today are nearly void of light gases and ices. The explanation may be that the terrestrial planets were once much larger and richer in these materials but eventually lost them because of these bodies' relative closeness to the Sun, which meant that their temperatures were relatively high. | 671.txt | 1 |
[
"immense in size",
"composed of similar particles",
"present at the very beginning of our solar system's formation",
"created from a great variety of different materials"
] | In calling the cloud of gas and dust from which the Sun and all the planets are thought to have condensed "primordial",(in paragraph 6) the author means that the cloud was | The Sun is the hub of a huge rotating system consisting of nine planets, their satellites, and numerous small bodies, including asteroids, comets, and meteoroids. An estimated 99.85 percent of the mass of our solar system is contained within the Sun, while the planets collectively make up most of the remaining 0.15 percent. The planets, in order of their distance from the Sun, are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Under the control of the Sun's gravitational force, each planet maintains an elliptical orbit and all of them travel in the same direction.
The planets in our solar system fall into two groups: the terrestrial (Earth-like) planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) and the Jovian (Jupiter-like) planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). Pluto is not included in either category, because its great distance from Earth and its small size make this planet's true nature a mystery.
The most obvious difference between the terrestrial and the Jovian planets is their size. The largest terrestrial planet, Earth has a diameter only one quarter as great as the diameter of the smallest Jovian planet, Neptune, and its mass is only one seventeenth as great. Hence, the Jovian planets are often called giants. Also, because of their relative locations, the four Jovian planets are known as the outer planets, while the terrestrial planets are known as the inner planets. There appears to be a correlation between the positions of these planets and their sizes.
Other dimensions along which the two groups differ markedly are density and composition. The densities of the terrestrial planets average about 5 times the density of water, whereas the Jovian planets have densities that average only 1.5 times the density of water. One of the outer planets, Saturn, has a density of only 0.7 that of water, which means that Saturn would float in water. Variations in the composition of the planets are largely responsible for the density differences. The substances that make up both groups of planets are divided into three groups-gases, rocks, and ices-based on their melting points. The terrestrial planets are mostly rocks: dense rocky and metallic material, with minor amounts of gases. The Jovian planets, on the other hand, contain a large percentage of the gases hydrogen and helium, with varying amounts of ices: mostly water, ammonia, and methane ices.
The Jovian planets have very thick atmospheres consisting of varying amounts of hydrogen, helium, methane, and ammonia. By comparison, the terrestrial planets have meager atmospheres at best. A planet's ability to retain an atmosphere depends on its temperature and mass. Simply stated, a gas molecule can "evaporate" from a planet if it reaches a speed known as the escape velocity. For Earth, this velocity is 11 kilometers per second. Any material, including a rocket, must reach this speed before it can leave Earth and go into space. The Jovian planets, because of their greater masses and thus higher surface gravities, have higher escape velocities (21-60 kilometers per seconD. than the terrestrial planets. Consequently, it is more difficult for gases to "evaporate" from them. Also, because the molecular motion of a gas depends on temperature, at the low temperatures of the Jovian planets even the lightest gases are unlikely to acquire the speed needed to escape. On the other hand, a comparatively warm body with a small surface gravity, like Earth's moon, is unable to hold even the heaviest gas and thus lacks an atmosphere. The slightly larger terrestrial planets Earth, Venus, and Mars retain some heavy gases like carbon dioxide, but even their atmospheres make up only an infinitesimally small portion of their total mass.
The orderly nature of our solar system leads most astronomers to conclude that the planets formed at essentially the same time and from the same material as the Sun. It is hypothesized that the primordial cloud of dust and gas from which all the planets are thought to have condensed had a composition somewhat similar to that of Jupiter. However, unlike Jupiter, the terrestrial planets today are nearly void of light gases and ices. The explanation may be that the terrestrial planets were once much larger and richer in these materials but eventually lost them because of these bodies' relative closeness to the Sun, which meant that their temperatures were relatively high. | 671.txt | 2 |
[
"over time",
"long ago",
"simply",
"certainly"
] | The word eventually in the passage (paragraph 6) is closest in meaning to | The Sun is the hub of a huge rotating system consisting of nine planets, their satellites, and numerous small bodies, including asteroids, comets, and meteoroids. An estimated 99.85 percent of the mass of our solar system is contained within the Sun, while the planets collectively make up most of the remaining 0.15 percent. The planets, in order of their distance from the Sun, are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Under the control of the Sun's gravitational force, each planet maintains an elliptical orbit and all of them travel in the same direction.
The planets in our solar system fall into two groups: the terrestrial (Earth-like) planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) and the Jovian (Jupiter-like) planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). Pluto is not included in either category, because its great distance from Earth and its small size make this planet's true nature a mystery.
The most obvious difference between the terrestrial and the Jovian planets is their size. The largest terrestrial planet, Earth has a diameter only one quarter as great as the diameter of the smallest Jovian planet, Neptune, and its mass is only one seventeenth as great. Hence, the Jovian planets are often called giants. Also, because of their relative locations, the four Jovian planets are known as the outer planets, while the terrestrial planets are known as the inner planets. There appears to be a correlation between the positions of these planets and their sizes.
Other dimensions along which the two groups differ markedly are density and composition. The densities of the terrestrial planets average about 5 times the density of water, whereas the Jovian planets have densities that average only 1.5 times the density of water. One of the outer planets, Saturn, has a density of only 0.7 that of water, which means that Saturn would float in water. Variations in the composition of the planets are largely responsible for the density differences. The substances that make up both groups of planets are divided into three groups-gases, rocks, and ices-based on their melting points. The terrestrial planets are mostly rocks: dense rocky and metallic material, with minor amounts of gases. The Jovian planets, on the other hand, contain a large percentage of the gases hydrogen and helium, with varying amounts of ices: mostly water, ammonia, and methane ices.
The Jovian planets have very thick atmospheres consisting of varying amounts of hydrogen, helium, methane, and ammonia. By comparison, the terrestrial planets have meager atmospheres at best. A planet's ability to retain an atmosphere depends on its temperature and mass. Simply stated, a gas molecule can "evaporate" from a planet if it reaches a speed known as the escape velocity. For Earth, this velocity is 11 kilometers per second. Any material, including a rocket, must reach this speed before it can leave Earth and go into space. The Jovian planets, because of their greater masses and thus higher surface gravities, have higher escape velocities (21-60 kilometers per seconD. than the terrestrial planets. Consequently, it is more difficult for gases to "evaporate" from them. Also, because the molecular motion of a gas depends on temperature, at the low temperatures of the Jovian planets even the lightest gases are unlikely to acquire the speed needed to escape. On the other hand, a comparatively warm body with a small surface gravity, like Earth's moon, is unable to hold even the heaviest gas and thus lacks an atmosphere. The slightly larger terrestrial planets Earth, Venus, and Mars retain some heavy gases like carbon dioxide, but even their atmospheres make up only an infinitesimally small portion of their total mass.
The orderly nature of our solar system leads most astronomers to conclude that the planets formed at essentially the same time and from the same material as the Sun. It is hypothesized that the primordial cloud of dust and gas from which all the planets are thought to have condensed had a composition somewhat similar to that of Jupiter. However, unlike Jupiter, the terrestrial planets today are nearly void of light gases and ices. The explanation may be that the terrestrial planets were once much larger and richer in these materials but eventually lost them because of these bodies' relative closeness to the Sun, which meant that their temperatures were relatively high. | 671.txt | 0 |
[
"The location of terrestrial planets caused them to lose some of the materials they once contained.",
"Terrestrial planets were formed much later than Jovian planets.",
"The composition of terrestrial planets was different from that of Jupiter.",
"Terrestrial planets were formed out of different material than the Sun was."
] | According to paragraph 6, what is a possible explanation for the lack of light gases and ices on terrestrial planets? | The Sun is the hub of a huge rotating system consisting of nine planets, their satellites, and numerous small bodies, including asteroids, comets, and meteoroids. An estimated 99.85 percent of the mass of our solar system is contained within the Sun, while the planets collectively make up most of the remaining 0.15 percent. The planets, in order of their distance from the Sun, are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Under the control of the Sun's gravitational force, each planet maintains an elliptical orbit and all of them travel in the same direction.
The planets in our solar system fall into two groups: the terrestrial (Earth-like) planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars) and the Jovian (Jupiter-like) planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune). Pluto is not included in either category, because its great distance from Earth and its small size make this planet's true nature a mystery.
The most obvious difference between the terrestrial and the Jovian planets is their size. The largest terrestrial planet, Earth has a diameter only one quarter as great as the diameter of the smallest Jovian planet, Neptune, and its mass is only one seventeenth as great. Hence, the Jovian planets are often called giants. Also, because of their relative locations, the four Jovian planets are known as the outer planets, while the terrestrial planets are known as the inner planets. There appears to be a correlation between the positions of these planets and their sizes.
Other dimensions along which the two groups differ markedly are density and composition. The densities of the terrestrial planets average about 5 times the density of water, whereas the Jovian planets have densities that average only 1.5 times the density of water. One of the outer planets, Saturn, has a density of only 0.7 that of water, which means that Saturn would float in water. Variations in the composition of the planets are largely responsible for the density differences. The substances that make up both groups of planets are divided into three groups-gases, rocks, and ices-based on their melting points. The terrestrial planets are mostly rocks: dense rocky and metallic material, with minor amounts of gases. The Jovian planets, on the other hand, contain a large percentage of the gases hydrogen and helium, with varying amounts of ices: mostly water, ammonia, and methane ices.
The Jovian planets have very thick atmospheres consisting of varying amounts of hydrogen, helium, methane, and ammonia. By comparison, the terrestrial planets have meager atmospheres at best. A planet's ability to retain an atmosphere depends on its temperature and mass. Simply stated, a gas molecule can "evaporate" from a planet if it reaches a speed known as the escape velocity. For Earth, this velocity is 11 kilometers per second. Any material, including a rocket, must reach this speed before it can leave Earth and go into space. The Jovian planets, because of their greater masses and thus higher surface gravities, have higher escape velocities (21-60 kilometers per seconD. than the terrestrial planets. Consequently, it is more difficult for gases to "evaporate" from them. Also, because the molecular motion of a gas depends on temperature, at the low temperatures of the Jovian planets even the lightest gases are unlikely to acquire the speed needed to escape. On the other hand, a comparatively warm body with a small surface gravity, like Earth's moon, is unable to hold even the heaviest gas and thus lacks an atmosphere. The slightly larger terrestrial planets Earth, Venus, and Mars retain some heavy gases like carbon dioxide, but even their atmospheres make up only an infinitesimally small portion of their total mass.
The orderly nature of our solar system leads most astronomers to conclude that the planets formed at essentially the same time and from the same material as the Sun. It is hypothesized that the primordial cloud of dust and gas from which all the planets are thought to have condensed had a composition somewhat similar to that of Jupiter. However, unlike Jupiter, the terrestrial planets today are nearly void of light gases and ices. The explanation may be that the terrestrial planets were once much larger and richer in these materials but eventually lost them because of these bodies' relative closeness to the Sun, which meant that their temperatures were relatively high. | 671.txt | 0 |
[
"Farms using windmills to pump water",
"Research centers exploring the uses of wind",
"Types of power plant common in North Dakota",
"Collections of wind turbines producing electric power"
] | Based on the information in paragraph 1, which of the following best explains the term wind farms? | Since 1980, the use of wind to produce electricity has been growing rapidly. In 1994 there were nearly 20,000 wind turbines worldwide, most grouped in clusters called wind farms that collectively produced 3,000 megawatts of electricity. Most were in Denmark (which got 3 percent of its electricity from wind turbines) and California (where 17,000 machines produced 1 percent of the state's electricity, enough to meet the residential needs of a city as large as San Francisco). In principle, all the power needs of the United States could be provided by exploiting the wind potential of just three states-North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas.
Large wind farms can be built in six months to a year and then easily expanded as needed. With a moderate to fairly high net energy yield, these systems emit no heat-trapping carbon dioxide or other air pollutants and need no water for cooling; manufacturing them produces little water pollution. The land under wind turbines can be used for grazing cattle and other purposes, and leasing land for wind turbines can provide extra income for farmers and ranchers.
Wind power has a significant cost advantage over nuclear power and has become competitive with coal-fired power plants in many places. With new technological advances and mass production, projected cost declines should make wind power one of the world's cheapest ways to produce electricity. In the long run, electricity from large wind farms in remote areas might be used to make hydrogen gas from water during periods when there is less than peak demand for electricity. The hydrogen gas could then be fed into a storage system and used to generate electricity when additional or backup power is needed.
Wind power is most economical in areas with steady winds. In areas where the wind dies down, backup electricity from a utility company or from an energy storage system becomes necessary. Backup power could also be provided by linking wind farms with a solar cell, with conventional or pumped-storage hydropower, or with efficient natural-gas-burning turbines. Some drawbacks to wind farms include visual pollution and noise, although these can be overcome by improving their design and locating them in isolated areas.
Large wind farms might also interfere with the flight patterns of migratory birds in certain areas, and they have killed large birds of prey (especially hawks, falcons, and eagles) that prefer to hunt along the same ridge lines that are ideal for wind turbines. The killing of birds of prey by wind turbines has pitted environmentalists who champion wildlife protection against environmentalists who promote renewable wind energy. Researchers are evaluating how serious this problem is and hope to find ways to eliminate or sharply reduce this problem. Some analysts also contend that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is dwarfed by birds killed by other human-related sources and by the potential loss of entire bird species from possible global warming. Recorded deaths of birds of prey and other birds in wind farms in the United States currently amount to no more than 300 per year. By contrast, in the United States an estimated 97 million birds are killed each year when they collide with buildings made ofplate glass, 57 million are killed on highways each year; at least 3.8 million die annually from pollution and poisoning; and millions of birds are electrocuted each year by transmission and distribution lines carrying power produced by nuclear and coal power plants.
The technology is in place for a major expansion of wind power worldwide. Wind power is a virtually unlimited source of energy at favorable sites, and even excluding environmentally sensitive areas, the global potential of wind power is much higher than the current world electricity use. In theory, Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Russia, and the United Kingdom could use wind to meet all of their energy needs. Wind power experts project that by the middle of the twenty-first century wind power could supply more than 10 percent of the world's electricity and 10-25 percent of the electricity used in the United States. | 1570.txt | 3 |
[
"Use",
"Require",
"Release",
"Destroy"
] | The word emit in the passage is closest in meaning to | Since 1980, the use of wind to produce electricity has been growing rapidly. In 1994 there were nearly 20,000 wind turbines worldwide, most grouped in clusters called wind farms that collectively produced 3,000 megawatts of electricity. Most were in Denmark (which got 3 percent of its electricity from wind turbines) and California (where 17,000 machines produced 1 percent of the state's electricity, enough to meet the residential needs of a city as large as San Francisco). In principle, all the power needs of the United States could be provided by exploiting the wind potential of just three states-North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas.
Large wind farms can be built in six months to a year and then easily expanded as needed. With a moderate to fairly high net energy yield, these systems emit no heat-trapping carbon dioxide or other air pollutants and need no water for cooling; manufacturing them produces little water pollution. The land under wind turbines can be used for grazing cattle and other purposes, and leasing land for wind turbines can provide extra income for farmers and ranchers.
Wind power has a significant cost advantage over nuclear power and has become competitive with coal-fired power plants in many places. With new technological advances and mass production, projected cost declines should make wind power one of the world's cheapest ways to produce electricity. In the long run, electricity from large wind farms in remote areas might be used to make hydrogen gas from water during periods when there is less than peak demand for electricity. The hydrogen gas could then be fed into a storage system and used to generate electricity when additional or backup power is needed.
Wind power is most economical in areas with steady winds. In areas where the wind dies down, backup electricity from a utility company or from an energy storage system becomes necessary. Backup power could also be provided by linking wind farms with a solar cell, with conventional or pumped-storage hydropower, or with efficient natural-gas-burning turbines. Some drawbacks to wind farms include visual pollution and noise, although these can be overcome by improving their design and locating them in isolated areas.
Large wind farms might also interfere with the flight patterns of migratory birds in certain areas, and they have killed large birds of prey (especially hawks, falcons, and eagles) that prefer to hunt along the same ridge lines that are ideal for wind turbines. The killing of birds of prey by wind turbines has pitted environmentalists who champion wildlife protection against environmentalists who promote renewable wind energy. Researchers are evaluating how serious this problem is and hope to find ways to eliminate or sharply reduce this problem. Some analysts also contend that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is dwarfed by birds killed by other human-related sources and by the potential loss of entire bird species from possible global warming. Recorded deaths of birds of prey and other birds in wind farms in the United States currently amount to no more than 300 per year. By contrast, in the United States an estimated 97 million birds are killed each year when they collide with buildings made ofplate glass, 57 million are killed on highways each year; at least 3.8 million die annually from pollution and poisoning; and millions of birds are electrocuted each year by transmission and distribution lines carrying power produced by nuclear and coal power plants.
The technology is in place for a major expansion of wind power worldwide. Wind power is a virtually unlimited source of energy at favorable sites, and even excluding environmentally sensitive areas, the global potential of wind power is much higher than the current world electricity use. In theory, Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Russia, and the United Kingdom could use wind to meet all of their energy needs. Wind power experts project that by the middle of the twenty-first century wind power could supply more than 10 percent of the world's electricity and 10-25 percent of the electricity used in the United States. | 1570.txt | 2 |
[
"They rely largely on coal-fired power plants.",
"They contain remote areas where the winds rarely die down.",
"Over 1 percent of the electricity in these states is produced by wind farms.",
"Wind farms in these states are being expanded to meet the power needs of the United States."
] | Based on the information in paragraph 3 and paragraph 4, what can be inferred about the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas mentioned at the end of paragraph 1? | Since 1980, the use of wind to produce electricity has been growing rapidly. In 1994 there were nearly 20,000 wind turbines worldwide, most grouped in clusters called wind farms that collectively produced 3,000 megawatts of electricity. Most were in Denmark (which got 3 percent of its electricity from wind turbines) and California (where 17,000 machines produced 1 percent of the state's electricity, enough to meet the residential needs of a city as large as San Francisco). In principle, all the power needs of the United States could be provided by exploiting the wind potential of just three states-North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas.
Large wind farms can be built in six months to a year and then easily expanded as needed. With a moderate to fairly high net energy yield, these systems emit no heat-trapping carbon dioxide or other air pollutants and need no water for cooling; manufacturing them produces little water pollution. The land under wind turbines can be used for grazing cattle and other purposes, and leasing land for wind turbines can provide extra income for farmers and ranchers.
Wind power has a significant cost advantage over nuclear power and has become competitive with coal-fired power plants in many places. With new technological advances and mass production, projected cost declines should make wind power one of the world's cheapest ways to produce electricity. In the long run, electricity from large wind farms in remote areas might be used to make hydrogen gas from water during periods when there is less than peak demand for electricity. The hydrogen gas could then be fed into a storage system and used to generate electricity when additional or backup power is needed.
Wind power is most economical in areas with steady winds. In areas where the wind dies down, backup electricity from a utility company or from an energy storage system becomes necessary. Backup power could also be provided by linking wind farms with a solar cell, with conventional or pumped-storage hydropower, or with efficient natural-gas-burning turbines. Some drawbacks to wind farms include visual pollution and noise, although these can be overcome by improving their design and locating them in isolated areas.
Large wind farms might also interfere with the flight patterns of migratory birds in certain areas, and they have killed large birds of prey (especially hawks, falcons, and eagles) that prefer to hunt along the same ridge lines that are ideal for wind turbines. The killing of birds of prey by wind turbines has pitted environmentalists who champion wildlife protection against environmentalists who promote renewable wind energy. Researchers are evaluating how serious this problem is and hope to find ways to eliminate or sharply reduce this problem. Some analysts also contend that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is dwarfed by birds killed by other human-related sources and by the potential loss of entire bird species from possible global warming. Recorded deaths of birds of prey and other birds in wind farms in the United States currently amount to no more than 300 per year. By contrast, in the United States an estimated 97 million birds are killed each year when they collide with buildings made ofplate glass, 57 million are killed on highways each year; at least 3.8 million die annually from pollution and poisoning; and millions of birds are electrocuted each year by transmission and distribution lines carrying power produced by nuclear and coal power plants.
The technology is in place for a major expansion of wind power worldwide. Wind power is a virtually unlimited source of energy at favorable sites, and even excluding environmentally sensitive areas, the global potential of wind power is much higher than the current world electricity use. In theory, Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Russia, and the United Kingdom could use wind to meet all of their energy needs. Wind power experts project that by the middle of the twenty-first century wind power could supply more than 10 percent of the world's electricity and 10-25 percent of the electricity used in the United States. | 1570.txt | 1 |
[
"These periods are times when wind turbines are powered by hydrogen gas.",
"These periods provide the opportunity to produce and store energy for future use.",
"These periods create storage problems for all forms of power generation.",
"These periods occur as often as periods when the demand for electricity is high."
] | According to paragraph 3, which of the following is true about periods when the demand for electricity is relatively low? | Since 1980, the use of wind to produce electricity has been growing rapidly. In 1994 there were nearly 20,000 wind turbines worldwide, most grouped in clusters called wind farms that collectively produced 3,000 megawatts of electricity. Most were in Denmark (which got 3 percent of its electricity from wind turbines) and California (where 17,000 machines produced 1 percent of the state's electricity, enough to meet the residential needs of a city as large as San Francisco). In principle, all the power needs of the United States could be provided by exploiting the wind potential of just three states-North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas.
Large wind farms can be built in six months to a year and then easily expanded as needed. With a moderate to fairly high net energy yield, these systems emit no heat-trapping carbon dioxide or other air pollutants and need no water for cooling; manufacturing them produces little water pollution. The land under wind turbines can be used for grazing cattle and other purposes, and leasing land for wind turbines can provide extra income for farmers and ranchers.
Wind power has a significant cost advantage over nuclear power and has become competitive with coal-fired power plants in many places. With new technological advances and mass production, projected cost declines should make wind power one of the world's cheapest ways to produce electricity. In the long run, electricity from large wind farms in remote areas might be used to make hydrogen gas from water during periods when there is less than peak demand for electricity. The hydrogen gas could then be fed into a storage system and used to generate electricity when additional or backup power is needed.
Wind power is most economical in areas with steady winds. In areas where the wind dies down, backup electricity from a utility company or from an energy storage system becomes necessary. Backup power could also be provided by linking wind farms with a solar cell, with conventional or pumped-storage hydropower, or with efficient natural-gas-burning turbines. Some drawbacks to wind farms include visual pollution and noise, although these can be overcome by improving their design and locating them in isolated areas.
Large wind farms might also interfere with the flight patterns of migratory birds in certain areas, and they have killed large birds of prey (especially hawks, falcons, and eagles) that prefer to hunt along the same ridge lines that are ideal for wind turbines. The killing of birds of prey by wind turbines has pitted environmentalists who champion wildlife protection against environmentalists who promote renewable wind energy. Researchers are evaluating how serious this problem is and hope to find ways to eliminate or sharply reduce this problem. Some analysts also contend that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is dwarfed by birds killed by other human-related sources and by the potential loss of entire bird species from possible global warming. Recorded deaths of birds of prey and other birds in wind farms in the United States currently amount to no more than 300 per year. By contrast, in the United States an estimated 97 million birds are killed each year when they collide with buildings made ofplate glass, 57 million are killed on highways each year; at least 3.8 million die annually from pollution and poisoning; and millions of birds are electrocuted each year by transmission and distribution lines carrying power produced by nuclear and coal power plants.
The technology is in place for a major expansion of wind power worldwide. Wind power is a virtually unlimited source of energy at favorable sites, and even excluding environmentally sensitive areas, the global potential of wind power is much higher than the current world electricity use. In theory, Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Russia, and the United Kingdom could use wind to meet all of their energy needs. Wind power experts project that by the middle of the twenty-first century wind power could supply more than 10 percent of the world's electricity and 10-25 percent of the electricity used in the United States. | 1570.txt | 1 |
[
"Power does not reach all customers",
"Wind farms cannot be used",
"Solar power is more appropriate",
"Backup systems are needed"
] | In paragraph 4, the author states that in areas where winds are not steady | Since 1980, the use of wind to produce electricity has been growing rapidly. In 1994 there were nearly 20,000 wind turbines worldwide, most grouped in clusters called wind farms that collectively produced 3,000 megawatts of electricity. Most were in Denmark (which got 3 percent of its electricity from wind turbines) and California (where 17,000 machines produced 1 percent of the state's electricity, enough to meet the residential needs of a city as large as San Francisco). In principle, all the power needs of the United States could be provided by exploiting the wind potential of just three states-North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas.
Large wind farms can be built in six months to a year and then easily expanded as needed. With a moderate to fairly high net energy yield, these systems emit no heat-trapping carbon dioxide or other air pollutants and need no water for cooling; manufacturing them produces little water pollution. The land under wind turbines can be used for grazing cattle and other purposes, and leasing land for wind turbines can provide extra income for farmers and ranchers.
Wind power has a significant cost advantage over nuclear power and has become competitive with coal-fired power plants in many places. With new technological advances and mass production, projected cost declines should make wind power one of the world's cheapest ways to produce electricity. In the long run, electricity from large wind farms in remote areas might be used to make hydrogen gas from water during periods when there is less than peak demand for electricity. The hydrogen gas could then be fed into a storage system and used to generate electricity when additional or backup power is needed.
Wind power is most economical in areas with steady winds. In areas where the wind dies down, backup electricity from a utility company or from an energy storage system becomes necessary. Backup power could also be provided by linking wind farms with a solar cell, with conventional or pumped-storage hydropower, or with efficient natural-gas-burning turbines. Some drawbacks to wind farms include visual pollution and noise, although these can be overcome by improving their design and locating them in isolated areas.
Large wind farms might also interfere with the flight patterns of migratory birds in certain areas, and they have killed large birds of prey (especially hawks, falcons, and eagles) that prefer to hunt along the same ridge lines that are ideal for wind turbines. The killing of birds of prey by wind turbines has pitted environmentalists who champion wildlife protection against environmentalists who promote renewable wind energy. Researchers are evaluating how serious this problem is and hope to find ways to eliminate or sharply reduce this problem. Some analysts also contend that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is dwarfed by birds killed by other human-related sources and by the potential loss of entire bird species from possible global warming. Recorded deaths of birds of prey and other birds in wind farms in the United States currently amount to no more than 300 per year. By contrast, in the United States an estimated 97 million birds are killed each year when they collide with buildings made ofplate glass, 57 million are killed on highways each year; at least 3.8 million die annually from pollution and poisoning; and millions of birds are electrocuted each year by transmission and distribution lines carrying power produced by nuclear and coal power plants.
The technology is in place for a major expansion of wind power worldwide. Wind power is a virtually unlimited source of energy at favorable sites, and even excluding environmentally sensitive areas, the global potential of wind power is much higher than the current world electricity use. In theory, Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Russia, and the United Kingdom could use wind to meet all of their energy needs. Wind power experts project that by the middle of the twenty-first century wind power could supply more than 10 percent of the world's electricity and 10-25 percent of the electricity used in the United States. | 1570.txt | 3 |
[
"Both problems affect the efficiency of wind farms.",
"Possible solutions are known for both problems.",
"Wind power creates more noise than visual pollution.",
"People are more concerned about visual pollution than noise."
] | According to paragraph 4, what can be inferred about the problems of visual pollution and noise associated with wind farms? | Since 1980, the use of wind to produce electricity has been growing rapidly. In 1994 there were nearly 20,000 wind turbines worldwide, most grouped in clusters called wind farms that collectively produced 3,000 megawatts of electricity. Most were in Denmark (which got 3 percent of its electricity from wind turbines) and California (where 17,000 machines produced 1 percent of the state's electricity, enough to meet the residential needs of a city as large as San Francisco). In principle, all the power needs of the United States could be provided by exploiting the wind potential of just three states-North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas.
Large wind farms can be built in six months to a year and then easily expanded as needed. With a moderate to fairly high net energy yield, these systems emit no heat-trapping carbon dioxide or other air pollutants and need no water for cooling; manufacturing them produces little water pollution. The land under wind turbines can be used for grazing cattle and other purposes, and leasing land for wind turbines can provide extra income for farmers and ranchers.
Wind power has a significant cost advantage over nuclear power and has become competitive with coal-fired power plants in many places. With new technological advances and mass production, projected cost declines should make wind power one of the world's cheapest ways to produce electricity. In the long run, electricity from large wind farms in remote areas might be used to make hydrogen gas from water during periods when there is less than peak demand for electricity. The hydrogen gas could then be fed into a storage system and used to generate electricity when additional or backup power is needed.
Wind power is most economical in areas with steady winds. In areas where the wind dies down, backup electricity from a utility company or from an energy storage system becomes necessary. Backup power could also be provided by linking wind farms with a solar cell, with conventional or pumped-storage hydropower, or with efficient natural-gas-burning turbines. Some drawbacks to wind farms include visual pollution and noise, although these can be overcome by improving their design and locating them in isolated areas.
Large wind farms might also interfere with the flight patterns of migratory birds in certain areas, and they have killed large birds of prey (especially hawks, falcons, and eagles) that prefer to hunt along the same ridge lines that are ideal for wind turbines. The killing of birds of prey by wind turbines has pitted environmentalists who champion wildlife protection against environmentalists who promote renewable wind energy. Researchers are evaluating how serious this problem is and hope to find ways to eliminate or sharply reduce this problem. Some analysts also contend that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is dwarfed by birds killed by other human-related sources and by the potential loss of entire bird species from possible global warming. Recorded deaths of birds of prey and other birds in wind farms in the United States currently amount to no more than 300 per year. By contrast, in the United States an estimated 97 million birds are killed each year when they collide with buildings made ofplate glass, 57 million are killed on highways each year; at least 3.8 million die annually from pollution and poisoning; and millions of birds are electrocuted each year by transmission and distribution lines carrying power produced by nuclear and coal power plants.
The technology is in place for a major expansion of wind power worldwide. Wind power is a virtually unlimited source of energy at favorable sites, and even excluding environmentally sensitive areas, the global potential of wind power is much higher than the current world electricity use. In theory, Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Russia, and the United Kingdom could use wind to meet all of their energy needs. Wind power experts project that by the middle of the twenty-first century wind power could supply more than 10 percent of the world's electricity and 10-25 percent of the electricity used in the United States. | 1570.txt | 1 |
[
"Interference with the flight patterns of migrating birds in certain areas",
"Building ridge lines that are ideal for wind turbines",
"The killing of birds of prey by wind turbines",
"Meeting the demands of environmentalists who promote renewable wind energy"
] | The phrase this problem in the passage refers to | Since 1980, the use of wind to produce electricity has been growing rapidly. In 1994 there were nearly 20,000 wind turbines worldwide, most grouped in clusters called wind farms that collectively produced 3,000 megawatts of electricity. Most were in Denmark (which got 3 percent of its electricity from wind turbines) and California (where 17,000 machines produced 1 percent of the state's electricity, enough to meet the residential needs of a city as large as San Francisco). In principle, all the power needs of the United States could be provided by exploiting the wind potential of just three states-North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas.
Large wind farms can be built in six months to a year and then easily expanded as needed. With a moderate to fairly high net energy yield, these systems emit no heat-trapping carbon dioxide or other air pollutants and need no water for cooling; manufacturing them produces little water pollution. The land under wind turbines can be used for grazing cattle and other purposes, and leasing land for wind turbines can provide extra income for farmers and ranchers.
Wind power has a significant cost advantage over nuclear power and has become competitive with coal-fired power plants in many places. With new technological advances and mass production, projected cost declines should make wind power one of the world's cheapest ways to produce electricity. In the long run, electricity from large wind farms in remote areas might be used to make hydrogen gas from water during periods when there is less than peak demand for electricity. The hydrogen gas could then be fed into a storage system and used to generate electricity when additional or backup power is needed.
Wind power is most economical in areas with steady winds. In areas where the wind dies down, backup electricity from a utility company or from an energy storage system becomes necessary. Backup power could also be provided by linking wind farms with a solar cell, with conventional or pumped-storage hydropower, or with efficient natural-gas-burning turbines. Some drawbacks to wind farms include visual pollution and noise, although these can be overcome by improving their design and locating them in isolated areas.
Large wind farms might also interfere with the flight patterns of migratory birds in certain areas, and they have killed large birds of prey (especially hawks, falcons, and eagles) that prefer to hunt along the same ridge lines that are ideal for wind turbines. The killing of birds of prey by wind turbines has pitted environmentalists who champion wildlife protection against environmentalists who promote renewable wind energy. Researchers are evaluating how serious this problem is and hope to find ways to eliminate or sharply reduce this problem. Some analysts also contend that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is dwarfed by birds killed by other human-related sources and by the potential loss of entire bird species from possible global warming. Recorded deaths of birds of prey and other birds in wind farms in the United States currently amount to no more than 300 per year. By contrast, in the United States an estimated 97 million birds are killed each year when they collide with buildings made ofplate glass, 57 million are killed on highways each year; at least 3.8 million die annually from pollution and poisoning; and millions of birds are electrocuted each year by transmission and distribution lines carrying power produced by nuclear and coal power plants.
The technology is in place for a major expansion of wind power worldwide. Wind power is a virtually unlimited source of energy at favorable sites, and even excluding environmentally sensitive areas, the global potential of wind power is much higher than the current world electricity use. In theory, Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Russia, and the United Kingdom could use wind to meet all of their energy needs. Wind power experts project that by the middle of the twenty-first century wind power could supply more than 10 percent of the world's electricity and 10-25 percent of the electricity used in the United States. | 1570.txt | 2 |
[
"To argue that wind farms should not be built along ridge lines",
"To point out that the deaths of migratory birds exceed the deaths of birds of prey",
"To explain why some environmentalists oppose wind energy",
"To suggest that wind turbines result in relatively few bird deaths"
] | In paragraph 5, why does the author give details about the estimated numbers of birds killed each year? | Since 1980, the use of wind to produce electricity has been growing rapidly. In 1994 there were nearly 20,000 wind turbines worldwide, most grouped in clusters called wind farms that collectively produced 3,000 megawatts of electricity. Most were in Denmark (which got 3 percent of its electricity from wind turbines) and California (where 17,000 machines produced 1 percent of the state's electricity, enough to meet the residential needs of a city as large as San Francisco). In principle, all the power needs of the United States could be provided by exploiting the wind potential of just three states-North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas.
Large wind farms can be built in six months to a year and then easily expanded as needed. With a moderate to fairly high net energy yield, these systems emit no heat-trapping carbon dioxide or other air pollutants and need no water for cooling; manufacturing them produces little water pollution. The land under wind turbines can be used for grazing cattle and other purposes, and leasing land for wind turbines can provide extra income for farmers and ranchers.
Wind power has a significant cost advantage over nuclear power and has become competitive with coal-fired power plants in many places. With new technological advances and mass production, projected cost declines should make wind power one of the world's cheapest ways to produce electricity. In the long run, electricity from large wind farms in remote areas might be used to make hydrogen gas from water during periods when there is less than peak demand for electricity. The hydrogen gas could then be fed into a storage system and used to generate electricity when additional or backup power is needed.
Wind power is most economical in areas with steady winds. In areas where the wind dies down, backup electricity from a utility company or from an energy storage system becomes necessary. Backup power could also be provided by linking wind farms with a solar cell, with conventional or pumped-storage hydropower, or with efficient natural-gas-burning turbines. Some drawbacks to wind farms include visual pollution and noise, although these can be overcome by improving their design and locating them in isolated areas.
Large wind farms might also interfere with the flight patterns of migratory birds in certain areas, and they have killed large birds of prey (especially hawks, falcons, and eagles) that prefer to hunt along the same ridge lines that are ideal for wind turbines. The killing of birds of prey by wind turbines has pitted environmentalists who champion wildlife protection against environmentalists who promote renewable wind energy. Researchers are evaluating how serious this problem is and hope to find ways to eliminate or sharply reduce this problem. Some analysts also contend that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is dwarfed by birds killed by other human-related sources and by the potential loss of entire bird species from possible global warming. Recorded deaths of birds of prey and other birds in wind farms in the United States currently amount to no more than 300 per year. By contrast, in the United States an estimated 97 million birds are killed each year when they collide with buildings made ofplate glass, 57 million are killed on highways each year; at least 3.8 million die annually from pollution and poisoning; and millions of birds are electrocuted each year by transmission and distribution lines carrying power produced by nuclear and coal power plants.
The technology is in place for a major expansion of wind power worldwide. Wind power is a virtually unlimited source of energy at favorable sites, and even excluding environmentally sensitive areas, the global potential of wind power is much higher than the current world electricity use. In theory, Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Russia, and the United Kingdom could use wind to meet all of their energy needs. Wind power experts project that by the middle of the twenty-first century wind power could supply more than 10 percent of the world's electricity and 10-25 percent of the electricity used in the United States. | 1570.txt | 3 |
[
"Can identify",
"Change",
"Are reduced by",
"Total"
] | The phrase amount to in the passage is closest in meaning to | Since 1980, the use of wind to produce electricity has been growing rapidly. In 1994 there were nearly 20,000 wind turbines worldwide, most grouped in clusters called wind farms that collectively produced 3,000 megawatts of electricity. Most were in Denmark (which got 3 percent of its electricity from wind turbines) and California (where 17,000 machines produced 1 percent of the state's electricity, enough to meet the residential needs of a city as large as San Francisco). In principle, all the power needs of the United States could be provided by exploiting the wind potential of just three states-North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas.
Large wind farms can be built in six months to a year and then easily expanded as needed. With a moderate to fairly high net energy yield, these systems emit no heat-trapping carbon dioxide or other air pollutants and need no water for cooling; manufacturing them produces little water pollution. The land under wind turbines can be used for grazing cattle and other purposes, and leasing land for wind turbines can provide extra income for farmers and ranchers.
Wind power has a significant cost advantage over nuclear power and has become competitive with coal-fired power plants in many places. With new technological advances and mass production, projected cost declines should make wind power one of the world's cheapest ways to produce electricity. In the long run, electricity from large wind farms in remote areas might be used to make hydrogen gas from water during periods when there is less than peak demand for electricity. The hydrogen gas could then be fed into a storage system and used to generate electricity when additional or backup power is needed.
Wind power is most economical in areas with steady winds. In areas where the wind dies down, backup electricity from a utility company or from an energy storage system becomes necessary. Backup power could also be provided by linking wind farms with a solar cell, with conventional or pumped-storage hydropower, or with efficient natural-gas-burning turbines. Some drawbacks to wind farms include visual pollution and noise, although these can be overcome by improving their design and locating them in isolated areas.
Large wind farms might also interfere with the flight patterns of migratory birds in certain areas, and they have killed large birds of prey (especially hawks, falcons, and eagles) that prefer to hunt along the same ridge lines that are ideal for wind turbines. The killing of birds of prey by wind turbines has pitted environmentalists who champion wildlife protection against environmentalists who promote renewable wind energy. Researchers are evaluating how serious this problem is and hope to find ways to eliminate or sharply reduce this problem. Some analysts also contend that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is dwarfed by birds killed by other human-related sources and by the potential loss of entire bird species from possible global warming. Recorded deaths of birds of prey and other birds in wind farms in the United States currently amount to no more than 300 per year. By contrast, in the United States an estimated 97 million birds are killed each year when they collide with buildings made ofplate glass, 57 million are killed on highways each year; at least 3.8 million die annually from pollution and poisoning; and millions of birds are electrocuted each year by transmission and distribution lines carrying power produced by nuclear and coal power plants.
The technology is in place for a major expansion of wind power worldwide. Wind power is a virtually unlimited source of energy at favorable sites, and even excluding environmentally sensitive areas, the global potential of wind power is much higher than the current world electricity use. In theory, Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Russia, and the United Kingdom could use wind to meet all of their energy needs. Wind power experts project that by the middle of the twenty-first century wind power could supply more than 10 percent of the world's electricity and 10-25 percent of the electricity used in the United States. | 1570.txt | 3 |
[
"Estimate",
"Respond",
"Argue",
"Plan"
] | The word "project" in the passage is closest in meaning to | Since 1980, the use of wind to produce electricity has been growing rapidly. In 1994 there were nearly 20,000 wind turbines worldwide, most grouped in clusters called wind farms that collectively produced 3,000 megawatts of electricity. Most were in Denmark (which got 3 percent of its electricity from wind turbines) and California (where 17,000 machines produced 1 percent of the state's electricity, enough to meet the residential needs of a city as large as San Francisco). In principle, all the power needs of the United States could be provided by exploiting the wind potential of just three states-North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas.
Large wind farms can be built in six months to a year and then easily expanded as needed. With a moderate to fairly high net energy yield, these systems emit no heat-trapping carbon dioxide or other air pollutants and need no water for cooling; manufacturing them produces little water pollution. The land under wind turbines can be used for grazing cattle and other purposes, and leasing land for wind turbines can provide extra income for farmers and ranchers.
Wind power has a significant cost advantage over nuclear power and has become competitive with coal-fired power plants in many places. With new technological advances and mass production, projected cost declines should make wind power one of the world's cheapest ways to produce electricity. In the long run, electricity from large wind farms in remote areas might be used to make hydrogen gas from water during periods when there is less than peak demand for electricity. The hydrogen gas could then be fed into a storage system and used to generate electricity when additional or backup power is needed.
Wind power is most economical in areas with steady winds. In areas where the wind dies down, backup electricity from a utility company or from an energy storage system becomes necessary. Backup power could also be provided by linking wind farms with a solar cell, with conventional or pumped-storage hydropower, or with efficient natural-gas-burning turbines. Some drawbacks to wind farms include visual pollution and noise, although these can be overcome by improving their design and locating them in isolated areas.
Large wind farms might also interfere with the flight patterns of migratory birds in certain areas, and they have killed large birds of prey (especially hawks, falcons, and eagles) that prefer to hunt along the same ridge lines that are ideal for wind turbines. The killing of birds of prey by wind turbines has pitted environmentalists who champion wildlife protection against environmentalists who promote renewable wind energy. Researchers are evaluating how serious this problem is and hope to find ways to eliminate or sharply reduce this problem. Some analysts also contend that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is dwarfed by birds killed by other human-related sources and by the potential loss of entire bird species from possible global warming. Recorded deaths of birds of prey and other birds in wind farms in the United States currently amount to no more than 300 per year. By contrast, in the United States an estimated 97 million birds are killed each year when they collide with buildings made ofplate glass, 57 million are killed on highways each year; at least 3.8 million die annually from pollution and poisoning; and millions of birds are electrocuted each year by transmission and distribution lines carrying power produced by nuclear and coal power plants.
The technology is in place for a major expansion of wind power worldwide. Wind power is a virtually unlimited source of energy at favorable sites, and even excluding environmentally sensitive areas, the global potential of wind power is much higher than the current world electricity use. In theory, Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Russia, and the United Kingdom could use wind to meet all of their energy needs. Wind power experts project that by the middle of the twenty-first century wind power could supply more than 10 percent of the world's electricity and 10-25 percent of the electricity used in the United States. | 1570.txt | 0 |
[
"Wind energy production should be limited to large wind farms.",
"The advantages of wind energy outweigh the disadvantages.",
"The technology to make wind energy safe and efficient will not be ready until the middle of the twenty-first century.",
"Wind energy will eventually supply many countries with most of their electricity."
] | Which of the following statements most accurately reflects the author's opinion about wind energy? | Since 1980, the use of wind to produce electricity has been growing rapidly. In 1994 there were nearly 20,000 wind turbines worldwide, most grouped in clusters called wind farms that collectively produced 3,000 megawatts of electricity. Most were in Denmark (which got 3 percent of its electricity from wind turbines) and California (where 17,000 machines produced 1 percent of the state's electricity, enough to meet the residential needs of a city as large as San Francisco). In principle, all the power needs of the United States could be provided by exploiting the wind potential of just three states-North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas.
Large wind farms can be built in six months to a year and then easily expanded as needed. With a moderate to fairly high net energy yield, these systems emit no heat-trapping carbon dioxide or other air pollutants and need no water for cooling; manufacturing them produces little water pollution. The land under wind turbines can be used for grazing cattle and other purposes, and leasing land for wind turbines can provide extra income for farmers and ranchers.
Wind power has a significant cost advantage over nuclear power and has become competitive with coal-fired power plants in many places. With new technological advances and mass production, projected cost declines should make wind power one of the world's cheapest ways to produce electricity. In the long run, electricity from large wind farms in remote areas might be used to make hydrogen gas from water during periods when there is less than peak demand for electricity. The hydrogen gas could then be fed into a storage system and used to generate electricity when additional or backup power is needed.
Wind power is most economical in areas with steady winds. In areas where the wind dies down, backup electricity from a utility company or from an energy storage system becomes necessary. Backup power could also be provided by linking wind farms with a solar cell, with conventional or pumped-storage hydropower, or with efficient natural-gas-burning turbines. Some drawbacks to wind farms include visual pollution and noise, although these can be overcome by improving their design and locating them in isolated areas.
Large wind farms might also interfere with the flight patterns of migratory birds in certain areas, and they have killed large birds of prey (especially hawks, falcons, and eagles) that prefer to hunt along the same ridge lines that are ideal for wind turbines. The killing of birds of prey by wind turbines has pitted environmentalists who champion wildlife protection against environmentalists who promote renewable wind energy. Researchers are evaluating how serious this problem is and hope to find ways to eliminate or sharply reduce this problem. Some analysts also contend that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is dwarfed by birds killed by other human-related sources and by the potential loss of entire bird species from possible global warming. Recorded deaths of birds of prey and other birds in wind farms in the United States currently amount to no more than 300 per year. By contrast, in the United States an estimated 97 million birds are killed each year when they collide with buildings made ofplate glass, 57 million are killed on highways each year; at least 3.8 million die annually from pollution and poisoning; and millions of birds are electrocuted each year by transmission and distribution lines carrying power produced by nuclear and coal power plants.
The technology is in place for a major expansion of wind power worldwide. Wind power is a virtually unlimited source of energy at favorable sites, and even excluding environmentally sensitive areas, the global potential of wind power is much higher than the current world electricity use. In theory, Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Russia, and the United Kingdom could use wind to meet all of their energy needs. Wind power experts project that by the middle of the twenty-first century wind power could supply more than 10 percent of the world's electricity and 10-25 percent of the electricity used in the United States. | 1570.txt | 1 |
[
"friendly man he never made any enemies",
"healthy man he lived longer than all his enemies",
"lucky man his enemies had all died",
"terrible man he had got rid of all his enemies"
] | The old man said he had not an enemy in the world, which shows that he was a very. | A well-known old man was being interviewed and was asked if it was correct that he had just celebrated his ninety-ninth birthday.
"That's right."said the old man. "Ninety-nine years old, and I haven't an enemy in the world. They're all dead."
"Well, sir,"said the interviewer, "I hope very much to have the honour of interviewing you on your hundredth birthday."
The old man looked at the young man closely, and said, "I can't see why you shouldn't. You look fit and healthy to me!" | 1851.txt | 1 |
[
"he was trying to make the old man happy",
"he wished he himself would live another year",
"he did not believe the old man would live to be one hundred",
"he did not believe he would interview the old man again"
] | When the interviewer said that he hoped very much to have the honour of interviewing the old man again the following year,. | A well-known old man was being interviewed and was asked if it was correct that he had just celebrated his ninety-ninth birthday.
"That's right."said the old man. "Ninety-nine years old, and I haven't an enemy in the world. They're all dead."
"Well, sir,"said the interviewer, "I hope very much to have the honour of interviewing you on your hundredth birthday."
The old man looked at the young man closely, and said, "I can't see why you shouldn't. You look fit and healthy to me!" | 1851.txt | 0 |
[
"\"You must try to live another year to interview me again next year.\"",
"\"Of course, you can see me again since you're so fit and healthy.\"",
"\"If I live to a hundred years, you should interview me again.\"",
"\"Unless you live another year, you wouldn't be able to interview me again.\""
] | When the old man said "I can't see why you shouldn't", what he meant was： | A well-known old man was being interviewed and was asked if it was correct that he had just celebrated his ninety-ninth birthday.
"That's right."said the old man. "Ninety-nine years old, and I haven't an enemy in the world. They're all dead."
"Well, sir,"said the interviewer, "I hope very much to have the honour of interviewing you on your hundredth birthday."
The old man looked at the young man closely, and said, "I can't see why you shouldn't. You look fit and healthy to me!" | 1851.txt | 1 |
[
"He was silly.",
"He was unpleasant.",
"He was very proud and sure of his health.",
"He was very impolite to young people."
] | What kind of man would you say the old man was? | A well-known old man was being interviewed and was asked if it was correct that he had just celebrated his ninety-ninth birthday.
"That's right."said the old man. "Ninety-nine years old, and I haven't an enemy in the world. They're all dead."
"Well, sir,"said the interviewer, "I hope very much to have the honour of interviewing you on your hundredth birthday."
The old man looked at the young man closely, and said, "I can't see why you shouldn't. You look fit and healthy to me!" | 1851.txt | 2 |
[
"Parents are eager to cure their children's disease.",
"Many parents are wasting money for their children's frightening disease.",
"Many parents fail to find the effective way for their children's disease.",
"Parents feel worried about their children's disease."
] | What does the study by Dr. Michael Cabana indicate? | Watching a child struggle to breathe during an asthma attack is frightening for any parent. So it is only natural that most moms and dads will try just about anything-including spending a lot of money-to keep an attack at bay. Trouble is, more than half of parents are trying strategies that simply don't work and wasting hundreds of dollars in the process, according to a study published last week in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
The report, based on interviews with the parents of 896 asthmatic children in 10 different cities, contained some good news. Eighty percent of parents had a handle on at least one of the triggers that worsened their children's asthma. After that, however, many parents seemed to go astray, taking precautions that weren't helpful" and made little sense," according to Dr. Michael Cabana, a pediatrician at the University of Michigan's C. S. Mott Children's Hospital, who led the study.
One of the most common mistakes was to buy a mattress cover to protect against dust mites for a child whose asthma was exacerbated instead by plant pollen. Many of those parents then neglected to do what would have helped a lot more: shut the windows to keep pollen out. Another was using a humidifier for a child who was allergic to dust mites; a humidifier tends to be a place where dust mites like to breed. With those allergies, a dehumidifier works better.
Worst of all was the number of smokers with asthmatic children who didn't even try to quit or at least limit themselves to smoking outdoors rather than just moving to another room or the garage. Second-hand smoke has been proved, over and over again, to be a major trigger of asthma attacks. Many smoking parents purchased expensive air filters that have what Cabana called" questionable utility."
Part of the problem, Dr. Cabana and his colleagues believe, is that parents are bombarded by television ads that encourage them to buy products such as air and carpet fresheners, ionizers and other remedies that are often expensive but medically unnecessary. And doctors may not always take the time, or have the time, to explain to parents what will and won't work in their child's particular case. For example, allergies are usually a problem for older children with asthma, while kids 5 and younger more frequently have trouble with viral respiratory infections. So make sure you understand what's really triggering your child's asthma. And remember, the best solutions are not always the most expensive ones. | 580.txt | 2 |
[
"Humidifier.",
"Second-hand smoke.",
"Plant pollen.",
"Dust mites."
] | Which of the following is NOT the trigger of asthma attacks? | Watching a child struggle to breathe during an asthma attack is frightening for any parent. So it is only natural that most moms and dads will try just about anything-including spending a lot of money-to keep an attack at bay. Trouble is, more than half of parents are trying strategies that simply don't work and wasting hundreds of dollars in the process, according to a study published last week in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
The report, based on interviews with the parents of 896 asthmatic children in 10 different cities, contained some good news. Eighty percent of parents had a handle on at least one of the triggers that worsened their children's asthma. After that, however, many parents seemed to go astray, taking precautions that weren't helpful" and made little sense," according to Dr. Michael Cabana, a pediatrician at the University of Michigan's C. S. Mott Children's Hospital, who led the study.
One of the most common mistakes was to buy a mattress cover to protect against dust mites for a child whose asthma was exacerbated instead by plant pollen. Many of those parents then neglected to do what would have helped a lot more: shut the windows to keep pollen out. Another was using a humidifier for a child who was allergic to dust mites; a humidifier tends to be a place where dust mites like to breed. With those allergies, a dehumidifier works better.
Worst of all was the number of smokers with asthmatic children who didn't even try to quit or at least limit themselves to smoking outdoors rather than just moving to another room or the garage. Second-hand smoke has been proved, over and over again, to be a major trigger of asthma attacks. Many smoking parents purchased expensive air filters that have what Cabana called" questionable utility."
Part of the problem, Dr. Cabana and his colleagues believe, is that parents are bombarded by television ads that encourage them to buy products such as air and carpet fresheners, ionizers and other remedies that are often expensive but medically unnecessary. And doctors may not always take the time, or have the time, to explain to parents what will and won't work in their child's particular case. For example, allergies are usually a problem for older children with asthma, while kids 5 and younger more frequently have trouble with viral respiratory infections. So make sure you understand what's really triggering your child's asthma. And remember, the best solutions are not always the most expensive ones. | 580.txt | 0 |
[
"to ease the attack",
"to lessen the attack",
"to continue the attack",
"to prevent the attack"
] | The expression" to keep an attack at bay" （Line 3, Paragraph 1）most probably means _ . | Watching a child struggle to breathe during an asthma attack is frightening for any parent. So it is only natural that most moms and dads will try just about anything-including spending a lot of money-to keep an attack at bay. Trouble is, more than half of parents are trying strategies that simply don't work and wasting hundreds of dollars in the process, according to a study published last week in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
The report, based on interviews with the parents of 896 asthmatic children in 10 different cities, contained some good news. Eighty percent of parents had a handle on at least one of the triggers that worsened their children's asthma. After that, however, many parents seemed to go astray, taking precautions that weren't helpful" and made little sense," according to Dr. Michael Cabana, a pediatrician at the University of Michigan's C. S. Mott Children's Hospital, who led the study.
One of the most common mistakes was to buy a mattress cover to protect against dust mites for a child whose asthma was exacerbated instead by plant pollen. Many of those parents then neglected to do what would have helped a lot more: shut the windows to keep pollen out. Another was using a humidifier for a child who was allergic to dust mites; a humidifier tends to be a place where dust mites like to breed. With those allergies, a dehumidifier works better.
Worst of all was the number of smokers with asthmatic children who didn't even try to quit or at least limit themselves to smoking outdoors rather than just moving to another room or the garage. Second-hand smoke has been proved, over and over again, to be a major trigger of asthma attacks. Many smoking parents purchased expensive air filters that have what Cabana called" questionable utility."
Part of the problem, Dr. Cabana and his colleagues believe, is that parents are bombarded by television ads that encourage them to buy products such as air and carpet fresheners, ionizers and other remedies that are often expensive but medically unnecessary. And doctors may not always take the time, or have the time, to explain to parents what will and won't work in their child's particular case. For example, allergies are usually a problem for older children with asthma, while kids 5 and younger more frequently have trouble with viral respiratory infections. So make sure you understand what's really triggering your child's asthma. And remember, the best solutions are not always the most expensive ones. | 580.txt | 3 |
[
"The doctors are not responsible enough.",
"Parents are influenced much by ads.",
"Parents are ignorant of the disease.",
"The quality of medical products is not good."
] | Why are the parents in such a dilemma? | Watching a child struggle to breathe during an asthma attack is frightening for any parent. So it is only natural that most moms and dads will try just about anything-including spending a lot of money-to keep an attack at bay. Trouble is, more than half of parents are trying strategies that simply don't work and wasting hundreds of dollars in the process, according to a study published last week in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
The report, based on interviews with the parents of 896 asthmatic children in 10 different cities, contained some good news. Eighty percent of parents had a handle on at least one of the triggers that worsened their children's asthma. After that, however, many parents seemed to go astray, taking precautions that weren't helpful" and made little sense," according to Dr. Michael Cabana, a pediatrician at the University of Michigan's C. S. Mott Children's Hospital, who led the study.
One of the most common mistakes was to buy a mattress cover to protect against dust mites for a child whose asthma was exacerbated instead by plant pollen. Many of those parents then neglected to do what would have helped a lot more: shut the windows to keep pollen out. Another was using a humidifier for a child who was allergic to dust mites; a humidifier tends to be a place where dust mites like to breed. With those allergies, a dehumidifier works better.
Worst of all was the number of smokers with asthmatic children who didn't even try to quit or at least limit themselves to smoking outdoors rather than just moving to another room or the garage. Second-hand smoke has been proved, over and over again, to be a major trigger of asthma attacks. Many smoking parents purchased expensive air filters that have what Cabana called" questionable utility."
Part of the problem, Dr. Cabana and his colleagues believe, is that parents are bombarded by television ads that encourage them to buy products such as air and carpet fresheners, ionizers and other remedies that are often expensive but medically unnecessary. And doctors may not always take the time, or have the time, to explain to parents what will and won't work in their child's particular case. For example, allergies are usually a problem for older children with asthma, while kids 5 and younger more frequently have trouble with viral respiratory infections. So make sure you understand what's really triggering your child's asthma. And remember, the best solutions are not always the most expensive ones. | 580.txt | 1 |
[
"Parents shouldn't spend too much money on the children.",
"The expensive products are not always good.",
"To know the real trigger of the disease is very important.",
"Parents often make mistakes."
] | Which of the following is TRUE according to the text? | Watching a child struggle to breathe during an asthma attack is frightening for any parent. So it is only natural that most moms and dads will try just about anything-including spending a lot of money-to keep an attack at bay. Trouble is, more than half of parents are trying strategies that simply don't work and wasting hundreds of dollars in the process, according to a study published last week in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
The report, based on interviews with the parents of 896 asthmatic children in 10 different cities, contained some good news. Eighty percent of parents had a handle on at least one of the triggers that worsened their children's asthma. After that, however, many parents seemed to go astray, taking precautions that weren't helpful" and made little sense," according to Dr. Michael Cabana, a pediatrician at the University of Michigan's C. S. Mott Children's Hospital, who led the study.
One of the most common mistakes was to buy a mattress cover to protect against dust mites for a child whose asthma was exacerbated instead by plant pollen. Many of those parents then neglected to do what would have helped a lot more: shut the windows to keep pollen out. Another was using a humidifier for a child who was allergic to dust mites; a humidifier tends to be a place where dust mites like to breed. With those allergies, a dehumidifier works better.
Worst of all was the number of smokers with asthmatic children who didn't even try to quit or at least limit themselves to smoking outdoors rather than just moving to another room or the garage. Second-hand smoke has been proved, over and over again, to be a major trigger of asthma attacks. Many smoking parents purchased expensive air filters that have what Cabana called" questionable utility."
Part of the problem, Dr. Cabana and his colleagues believe, is that parents are bombarded by television ads that encourage them to buy products such as air and carpet fresheners, ionizers and other remedies that are often expensive but medically unnecessary. And doctors may not always take the time, or have the time, to explain to parents what will and won't work in their child's particular case. For example, allergies are usually a problem for older children with asthma, while kids 5 and younger more frequently have trouble with viral respiratory infections. So make sure you understand what's really triggering your child's asthma. And remember, the best solutions are not always the most expensive ones. | 580.txt | 2 |
[
"Interpreting the News.",
"Choosing Facts.",
"Subjective versus Objective Processes.",
"Everything Counts."
] | The title that best expresses the ideas of this passage is | Analysis and Interpretation of the News
The newspaper must provide for the reader the facts, unalloyed, unslanted, objectively selected facts. But in these days of complex news it must provide more; it must supply interpretation, the meaning of the facts. This is the most important assignment confronting American journalism-to make clear to the reader the problems of the day, to make international news as understandable as community news, to recognize that there is no longer any such thing (with the possible exception of such scribbling as society and club news) as "local" news, because any event in the international area has a local reaction in manpower draft, in economic strain, in terms, indeed, of our very way of life.
There is in journalism a widespread view that when you embark on interpretation, you are entering choppy and dangerous waters, the swirling tides of opinion. This is nonsense.
The opponents of interpretation insist that the writer and the editor shall confine himself to the "facts". This insistence raises two questions: What are the facts? And: Are the bare facts enough?
As to the first query. Consider how a so-called "factual" story cones about. The reporter collects, say, fifty facts; out of these fifty, his space allotment being necessarily restricted, he selects the ten, which he considers most important. This is Judgment Number One. Then he or his editor decides which of these ten facts shall constitute the lead of the piece (This is important decision because many readers do not proceed beyond the first paragraph.) This is Judgment Number Two. Then the night editor determines whether the article shall be presented on page one, where it has a large impact, or on page twenty-four, where it has little. Judgment Number Three.
Thus, in the presentation of a so-called "factual" or "objective" story, at least three judgments are involved. And they are judgments not at all unlike those involved in interpretation, in which reporter and editor, calling upon their general background, and their "news neutralism," arrive at a conclusion as to the significance of the news.
The two areas of judgment, presentation of the news and its interpretation, are both objective rather then subjective processes-as objective, that is, as any human being can be. (Note in passing: even though complete objectivity can never be achieved, nevertheless the ideal must always be the beacon on the murky news channels.) Of an editor is intent on slanting the news, he can do it in other ways and more effectively than by interpretation. He can do it by the selection of those facts that prop up his particular plea. Or he can do it by the pay he gives a story-promoting it to page one or demoting it to page thirty. | 241.txt | 0 |
[
"Space is limited.",
"His editor is prejudiced.",
"The subject is not important.",
"He is entering choppy and dangerous."
] | Why does the writer of an article select ten out of 50 available facts? | Analysis and Interpretation of the News
The newspaper must provide for the reader the facts, unalloyed, unslanted, objectively selected facts. But in these days of complex news it must provide more; it must supply interpretation, the meaning of the facts. This is the most important assignment confronting American journalism-to make clear to the reader the problems of the day, to make international news as understandable as community news, to recognize that there is no longer any such thing (with the possible exception of such scribbling as society and club news) as "local" news, because any event in the international area has a local reaction in manpower draft, in economic strain, in terms, indeed, of our very way of life.
There is in journalism a widespread view that when you embark on interpretation, you are entering choppy and dangerous waters, the swirling tides of opinion. This is nonsense.
The opponents of interpretation insist that the writer and the editor shall confine himself to the "facts". This insistence raises two questions: What are the facts? And: Are the bare facts enough?
As to the first query. Consider how a so-called "factual" story cones about. The reporter collects, say, fifty facts; out of these fifty, his space allotment being necessarily restricted, he selects the ten, which he considers most important. This is Judgment Number One. Then he or his editor decides which of these ten facts shall constitute the lead of the piece (This is important decision because many readers do not proceed beyond the first paragraph.) This is Judgment Number Two. Then the night editor determines whether the article shall be presented on page one, where it has a large impact, or on page twenty-four, where it has little. Judgment Number Three.
Thus, in the presentation of a so-called "factual" or "objective" story, at least three judgments are involved. And they are judgments not at all unlike those involved in interpretation, in which reporter and editor, calling upon their general background, and their "news neutralism," arrive at a conclusion as to the significance of the news.
The two areas of judgment, presentation of the news and its interpretation, are both objective rather then subjective processes-as objective, that is, as any human being can be. (Note in passing: even though complete objectivity can never be achieved, nevertheless the ideal must always be the beacon on the murky news channels.) Of an editor is intent on slanting the news, he can do it in other ways and more effectively than by interpretation. He can do it by the selection of those facts that prop up his particular plea. Or he can do it by the pay he gives a story-promoting it to page one or demoting it to page thirty. | 241.txt | 0 |
[
"Interpretation.",
"His editor is prejudiced.",
"Placement.",
"Concentration."
] | What is the least effective way of "slanting" news/ | Analysis and Interpretation of the News
The newspaper must provide for the reader the facts, unalloyed, unslanted, objectively selected facts. But in these days of complex news it must provide more; it must supply interpretation, the meaning of the facts. This is the most important assignment confronting American journalism-to make clear to the reader the problems of the day, to make international news as understandable as community news, to recognize that there is no longer any such thing (with the possible exception of such scribbling as society and club news) as "local" news, because any event in the international area has a local reaction in manpower draft, in economic strain, in terms, indeed, of our very way of life.
There is in journalism a widespread view that when you embark on interpretation, you are entering choppy and dangerous waters, the swirling tides of opinion. This is nonsense.
The opponents of interpretation insist that the writer and the editor shall confine himself to the "facts". This insistence raises two questions: What are the facts? And: Are the bare facts enough?
As to the first query. Consider how a so-called "factual" story cones about. The reporter collects, say, fifty facts; out of these fifty, his space allotment being necessarily restricted, he selects the ten, which he considers most important. This is Judgment Number One. Then he or his editor decides which of these ten facts shall constitute the lead of the piece (This is important decision because many readers do not proceed beyond the first paragraph.) This is Judgment Number Two. Then the night editor determines whether the article shall be presented on page one, where it has a large impact, or on page twenty-four, where it has little. Judgment Number Three.
Thus, in the presentation of a so-called "factual" or "objective" story, at least three judgments are involved. And they are judgments not at all unlike those involved in interpretation, in which reporter and editor, calling upon their general background, and their "news neutralism," arrive at a conclusion as to the significance of the news.
The two areas of judgment, presentation of the news and its interpretation, are both objective rather then subjective processes-as objective, that is, as any human being can be. (Note in passing: even though complete objectivity can never be achieved, nevertheless the ideal must always be the beacon on the murky news channels.) Of an editor is intent on slanting the news, he can do it in other ways and more effectively than by interpretation. He can do it by the selection of those facts that prop up his particular plea. Or he can do it by the pay he gives a story-promoting it to page one or demoting it to page thirty. | 241.txt | 0 |
[
"It will influence the reader to continue.",
"It will be the best way to write.",
"Some readers do not read beyond the first paragraph.",
"It will gratify the editor."
] | Why should the lead sentence present the most important fact? | Analysis and Interpretation of the News
The newspaper must provide for the reader the facts, unalloyed, unslanted, objectively selected facts. But in these days of complex news it must provide more; it must supply interpretation, the meaning of the facts. This is the most important assignment confronting American journalism-to make clear to the reader the problems of the day, to make international news as understandable as community news, to recognize that there is no longer any such thing (with the possible exception of such scribbling as society and club news) as "local" news, because any event in the international area has a local reaction in manpower draft, in economic strain, in terms, indeed, of our very way of life.
There is in journalism a widespread view that when you embark on interpretation, you are entering choppy and dangerous waters, the swirling tides of opinion. This is nonsense.
The opponents of interpretation insist that the writer and the editor shall confine himself to the "facts". This insistence raises two questions: What are the facts? And: Are the bare facts enough?
As to the first query. Consider how a so-called "factual" story cones about. The reporter collects, say, fifty facts; out of these fifty, his space allotment being necessarily restricted, he selects the ten, which he considers most important. This is Judgment Number One. Then he or his editor decides which of these ten facts shall constitute the lead of the piece (This is important decision because many readers do not proceed beyond the first paragraph.) This is Judgment Number Two. Then the night editor determines whether the article shall be presented on page one, where it has a large impact, or on page twenty-four, where it has little. Judgment Number Three.
Thus, in the presentation of a so-called "factual" or "objective" story, at least three judgments are involved. And they are judgments not at all unlike those involved in interpretation, in which reporter and editor, calling upon their general background, and their "news neutralism," arrive at a conclusion as to the significance of the news.
The two areas of judgment, presentation of the news and its interpretation, are both objective rather then subjective processes-as objective, that is, as any human being can be. (Note in passing: even though complete objectivity can never be achieved, nevertheless the ideal must always be the beacon on the murky news channels.) Of an editor is intent on slanting the news, he can do it in other ways and more effectively than by interpretation. He can do it by the selection of those facts that prop up his particular plea. Or he can do it by the pay he gives a story-promoting it to page one or demoting it to page thirty. | 241.txt | 2 |
[
"Wrote in ways that did not challenge accepted literary practice.",
"Described scenes from their own lives.",
"Aroused patriotic feelings by expressing devotion to the land",
"Expressed complex feeling in the words of ordinary people."
] | According to the passage, most turn-of-the-century Black poets generally did which of the following? | The making of classifications be literary historians can be a somewhat risky enterprise. When Black poets are discussed separately as a group, for instance, the extent to which their work reflects the development of poetry in general should not be forgotten, or a distortion of literary history may result. This caution is particularly relevant in an assessment of the differences between Black poets at the turn of the century (1900-1909) and those of the generation of the 1920's. These differences include the bolder and more forthright speech of the later generation and its technical inventiveness. It should be remembered, though, that comparable differences also existed for similar generations of White poets.
When poets of the 1910's and 1920's are considered together, however, the distinctions that literary historians might make between "conservative" and "experimental" would be of little significance in a discussion of Black poets, although these remain helpful classifications for White poets of these decades. Certainly differences can be noted between "conservative" Black poets such as Countee Cullen and Claude McKay and "experimental" one such as Jean loomer and Langston Hughes. But Black poets were not battling over old or new styles; rather, one accomplished Black poet was ready to welcome another, whatever his her style, for what mattered was racial pride.
However, in the 1920's Black poets did debate whether they should deal with specifically racial subjects. They asked whether they should only write about Black experience for a Black audience or whether such demands were restrictive. It may be said, though, that virtually all these poets wrote their best poems when they spoke out of racial feeling, race being, as James Weldon Johnson rightly put in." perforce the thing the Negro poet knows best"
At the turn of the century, by contrast, most Black poets generally wrote in the conventional manner of the age and expressed noble, if vague, emotions in their poetry. These poets were not unusually gifted, though Boscoe Jamison and G, M, McClellen may be mentioned as exceptions. They chose not to write in dialect, which, as Sterling Brown bas suggested, "meant a rejection of stereotypes of Negro life," and they refused to write only about racial subjects. This refusal had both a positive and a negative consequence. As Brown observes. "Valuably insisting that Negro poets should not be confined to is sues of race, these poets committed [an] error… they refused to look into their hearts and write." These are important insights, but one must stress that this refusal to look within was also typical of most White poets of the United States at the time. They, too often turned from their own experience and consequently produced not very memorable poems about vague topics, such as the peace of nature. | 1954.txt | 0 |
[
"seek a consensus on new techniques of poetry",
"write exclusively about and for Blacks",
"withdraw their support from a repressive society",
"turn away from social questions to recollect the tranquillity of nature"
] | According to the passage, an issue facing Black poets in the 1920's was whether they should | The making of classifications be literary historians can be a somewhat risky enterprise. When Black poets are discussed separately as a group, for instance, the extent to which their work reflects the development of poetry in general should not be forgotten, or a distortion of literary history may result. This caution is particularly relevant in an assessment of the differences between Black poets at the turn of the century (1900-1909) and those of the generation of the 1920's. These differences include the bolder and more forthright speech of the later generation and its technical inventiveness. It should be remembered, though, that comparable differences also existed for similar generations of White poets.
When poets of the 1910's and 1920's are considered together, however, the distinctions that literary historians might make between "conservative" and "experimental" would be of little significance in a discussion of Black poets, although these remain helpful classifications for White poets of these decades. Certainly differences can be noted between "conservative" Black poets such as Countee Cullen and Claude McKay and "experimental" one such as Jean loomer and Langston Hughes. But Black poets were not battling over old or new styles; rather, one accomplished Black poet was ready to welcome another, whatever his her style, for what mattered was racial pride.
However, in the 1920's Black poets did debate whether they should deal with specifically racial subjects. They asked whether they should only write about Black experience for a Black audience or whether such demands were restrictive. It may be said, though, that virtually all these poets wrote their best poems when they spoke out of racial feeling, race being, as James Weldon Johnson rightly put in." perforce the thing the Negro poet knows best"
At the turn of the century, by contrast, most Black poets generally wrote in the conventional manner of the age and expressed noble, if vague, emotions in their poetry. These poets were not unusually gifted, though Boscoe Jamison and G, M, McClellen may be mentioned as exceptions. They chose not to write in dialect, which, as Sterling Brown bas suggested, "meant a rejection of stereotypes of Negro life," and they refused to write only about racial subjects. This refusal had both a positive and a negative consequence. As Brown observes. "Valuably insisting that Negro poets should not be confined to is sues of race, these poets committed [an] error… they refused to look into their hearts and write." These are important insights, but one must stress that this refusal to look within was also typical of most White poets of the United States at the time. They, too often turned from their own experience and consequently produced not very memorable poems about vague topics, such as the peace of nature. | 1954.txt | 1 |
[
"these poets wrote in very similar styles",
"these poets all wrote about nature in the same way",
"these poets were fundamentally united by a sense of racial achievement despite differences in poetic style",
"such a method of classification would fail to take account of the influence of general poetic practice"
] | It can be inferred from the passage that classifying a poet as either conservative or experimental would be of "little significance" (lines 26-27) when discussing Black poets of the 1910's and the 1920's because | The making of classifications be literary historians can be a somewhat risky enterprise. When Black poets are discussed separately as a group, for instance, the extent to which their work reflects the development of poetry in general should not be forgotten, or a distortion of literary history may result. This caution is particularly relevant in an assessment of the differences between Black poets at the turn of the century (1900-1909) and those of the generation of the 1920's. These differences include the bolder and more forthright speech of the later generation and its technical inventiveness. It should be remembered, though, that comparable differences also existed for similar generations of White poets.
When poets of the 1910's and 1920's are considered together, however, the distinctions that literary historians might make between "conservative" and "experimental" would be of little significance in a discussion of Black poets, although these remain helpful classifications for White poets of these decades. Certainly differences can be noted between "conservative" Black poets such as Countee Cullen and Claude McKay and "experimental" one such as Jean loomer and Langston Hughes. But Black poets were not battling over old or new styles; rather, one accomplished Black poet was ready to welcome another, whatever his her style, for what mattered was racial pride.
However, in the 1920's Black poets did debate whether they should deal with specifically racial subjects. They asked whether they should only write about Black experience for a Black audience or whether such demands were restrictive. It may be said, though, that virtually all these poets wrote their best poems when they spoke out of racial feeling, race being, as James Weldon Johnson rightly put in." perforce the thing the Negro poet knows best"
At the turn of the century, by contrast, most Black poets generally wrote in the conventional manner of the age and expressed noble, if vague, emotions in their poetry. These poets were not unusually gifted, though Boscoe Jamison and G, M, McClellen may be mentioned as exceptions. They chose not to write in dialect, which, as Sterling Brown bas suggested, "meant a rejection of stereotypes of Negro life," and they refused to write only about racial subjects. This refusal had both a positive and a negative consequence. As Brown observes. "Valuably insisting that Negro poets should not be confined to is sues of race, these poets committed [an] error… they refused to look into their hearts and write." These are important insights, but one must stress that this refusal to look within was also typical of most White poets of the United States at the time. They, too often turned from their own experience and consequently produced not very memorable poems about vague topics, such as the peace of nature. | 1954.txt | 2 |
[
"present an interpretation of some Black poets that contradicts the author's own assertion about their acceptance of various poetic styles",
"Introduce a distinction between Black poets who used dialect and White poets who did not",
"disprove James Weldon Johnson's claim that race is what \"the Negro poet knows best",
"suggest what were the effects of some Black poets decision not to write only about racial subjects"
] | The author quotes Sterling Brown in line 63 in order to | The making of classifications be literary historians can be a somewhat risky enterprise. When Black poets are discussed separately as a group, for instance, the extent to which their work reflects the development of poetry in general should not be forgotten, or a distortion of literary history may result. This caution is particularly relevant in an assessment of the differences between Black poets at the turn of the century (1900-1909) and those of the generation of the 1920's. These differences include the bolder and more forthright speech of the later generation and its technical inventiveness. It should be remembered, though, that comparable differences also existed for similar generations of White poets.
When poets of the 1910's and 1920's are considered together, however, the distinctions that literary historians might make between "conservative" and "experimental" would be of little significance in a discussion of Black poets, although these remain helpful classifications for White poets of these decades. Certainly differences can be noted between "conservative" Black poets such as Countee Cullen and Claude McKay and "experimental" one such as Jean loomer and Langston Hughes. But Black poets were not battling over old or new styles; rather, one accomplished Black poet was ready to welcome another, whatever his her style, for what mattered was racial pride.
However, in the 1920's Black poets did debate whether they should deal with specifically racial subjects. They asked whether they should only write about Black experience for a Black audience or whether such demands were restrictive. It may be said, though, that virtually all these poets wrote their best poems when they spoke out of racial feeling, race being, as James Weldon Johnson rightly put in." perforce the thing the Negro poet knows best"
At the turn of the century, by contrast, most Black poets generally wrote in the conventional manner of the age and expressed noble, if vague, emotions in their poetry. These poets were not unusually gifted, though Boscoe Jamison and G, M, McClellen may be mentioned as exceptions. They chose not to write in dialect, which, as Sterling Brown bas suggested, "meant a rejection of stereotypes of Negro life," and they refused to write only about racial subjects. This refusal had both a positive and a negative consequence. As Brown observes. "Valuably insisting that Negro poets should not be confined to is sues of race, these poets committed [an] error… they refused to look into their hearts and write." These are important insights, but one must stress that this refusal to look within was also typical of most White poets of the United States at the time. They, too often turned from their own experience and consequently produced not very memorable poems about vague topics, such as the peace of nature. | 1954.txt | 3 |
[
"unexciting",
"calming",
"confusing",
"delightful"
] | It can be inferred from the passage that the author finds the work of the majority of the Black poets at the turn of the century to be | The making of classifications be literary historians can be a somewhat risky enterprise. When Black poets are discussed separately as a group, for instance, the extent to which their work reflects the development of poetry in general should not be forgotten, or a distortion of literary history may result. This caution is particularly relevant in an assessment of the differences between Black poets at the turn of the century (1900-1909) and those of the generation of the 1920's. These differences include the bolder and more forthright speech of the later generation and its technical inventiveness. It should be remembered, though, that comparable differences also existed for similar generations of White poets.
When poets of the 1910's and 1920's are considered together, however, the distinctions that literary historians might make between "conservative" and "experimental" would be of little significance in a discussion of Black poets, although these remain helpful classifications for White poets of these decades. Certainly differences can be noted between "conservative" Black poets such as Countee Cullen and Claude McKay and "experimental" one such as Jean loomer and Langston Hughes. But Black poets were not battling over old or new styles; rather, one accomplished Black poet was ready to welcome another, whatever his her style, for what mattered was racial pride.
However, in the 1920's Black poets did debate whether they should deal with specifically racial subjects. They asked whether they should only write about Black experience for a Black audience or whether such demands were restrictive. It may be said, though, that virtually all these poets wrote their best poems when they spoke out of racial feeling, race being, as James Weldon Johnson rightly put in." perforce the thing the Negro poet knows best"
At the turn of the century, by contrast, most Black poets generally wrote in the conventional manner of the age and expressed noble, if vague, emotions in their poetry. These poets were not unusually gifted, though Boscoe Jamison and G, M, McClellen may be mentioned as exceptions. They chose not to write in dialect, which, as Sterling Brown bas suggested, "meant a rejection of stereotypes of Negro life," and they refused to write only about racial subjects. This refusal had both a positive and a negative consequence. As Brown observes. "Valuably insisting that Negro poets should not be confined to is sues of race, these poets committed [an] error… they refused to look into their hearts and write." These are important insights, but one must stress that this refusal to look within was also typical of most White poets of the United States at the time. They, too often turned from their own experience and consequently produced not very memorable poems about vague topics, such as the peace of nature. | 1954.txt | 0 |
[
"express a love of nature",
"declaim noble emotions",
"avoid technical questions about style'",
"write from personal experience"
] | The author would be most likely to agree that poets tend to produce better poems when they | The making of classifications be literary historians can be a somewhat risky enterprise. When Black poets are discussed separately as a group, for instance, the extent to which their work reflects the development of poetry in general should not be forgotten, or a distortion of literary history may result. This caution is particularly relevant in an assessment of the differences between Black poets at the turn of the century (1900-1909) and those of the generation of the 1920's. These differences include the bolder and more forthright speech of the later generation and its technical inventiveness. It should be remembered, though, that comparable differences also existed for similar generations of White poets.
When poets of the 1910's and 1920's are considered together, however, the distinctions that literary historians might make between "conservative" and "experimental" would be of little significance in a discussion of Black poets, although these remain helpful classifications for White poets of these decades. Certainly differences can be noted between "conservative" Black poets such as Countee Cullen and Claude McKay and "experimental" one such as Jean loomer and Langston Hughes. But Black poets were not battling over old or new styles; rather, one accomplished Black poet was ready to welcome another, whatever his her style, for what mattered was racial pride.
However, in the 1920's Black poets did debate whether they should deal with specifically racial subjects. They asked whether they should only write about Black experience for a Black audience or whether such demands were restrictive. It may be said, though, that virtually all these poets wrote their best poems when they spoke out of racial feeling, race being, as James Weldon Johnson rightly put in." perforce the thing the Negro poet knows best"
At the turn of the century, by contrast, most Black poets generally wrote in the conventional manner of the age and expressed noble, if vague, emotions in their poetry. These poets were not unusually gifted, though Boscoe Jamison and G, M, McClellen may be mentioned as exceptions. They chose not to write in dialect, which, as Sterling Brown bas suggested, "meant a rejection of stereotypes of Negro life," and they refused to write only about racial subjects. This refusal had both a positive and a negative consequence. As Brown observes. "Valuably insisting that Negro poets should not be confined to is sues of race, these poets committed [an] error… they refused to look into their hearts and write." These are important insights, but one must stress that this refusal to look within was also typical of most White poets of the United States at the time. They, too often turned from their own experience and consequently produced not very memorable poems about vague topics, such as the peace of nature. | 1954.txt | 3 |
[
"Enthusiastic",
"Indifferent",
"Wary",
"Derisive"
] | Which of the following best describes the attitude of the author toward classification as a technique in literary history? | The making of classifications be literary historians can be a somewhat risky enterprise. When Black poets are discussed separately as a group, for instance, the extent to which their work reflects the development of poetry in general should not be forgotten, or a distortion of literary history may result. This caution is particularly relevant in an assessment of the differences between Black poets at the turn of the century (1900-1909) and those of the generation of the 1920's. These differences include the bolder and more forthright speech of the later generation and its technical inventiveness. It should be remembered, though, that comparable differences also existed for similar generations of White poets.
When poets of the 1910's and 1920's are considered together, however, the distinctions that literary historians might make between "conservative" and "experimental" would be of little significance in a discussion of Black poets, although these remain helpful classifications for White poets of these decades. Certainly differences can be noted between "conservative" Black poets such as Countee Cullen and Claude McKay and "experimental" one such as Jean loomer and Langston Hughes. But Black poets were not battling over old or new styles; rather, one accomplished Black poet was ready to welcome another, whatever his her style, for what mattered was racial pride.
However, in the 1920's Black poets did debate whether they should deal with specifically racial subjects. They asked whether they should only write about Black experience for a Black audience or whether such demands were restrictive. It may be said, though, that virtually all these poets wrote their best poems when they spoke out of racial feeling, race being, as James Weldon Johnson rightly put in." perforce the thing the Negro poet knows best"
At the turn of the century, by contrast, most Black poets generally wrote in the conventional manner of the age and expressed noble, if vague, emotions in their poetry. These poets were not unusually gifted, though Boscoe Jamison and G, M, McClellen may be mentioned as exceptions. They chose not to write in dialect, which, as Sterling Brown bas suggested, "meant a rejection of stereotypes of Negro life," and they refused to write only about racial subjects. This refusal had both a positive and a negative consequence. As Brown observes. "Valuably insisting that Negro poets should not be confined to is sues of race, these poets committed [an] error… they refused to look into their hearts and write." These are important insights, but one must stress that this refusal to look within was also typical of most White poets of the United States at the time. They, too often turned from their own experience and consequently produced not very memorable poems about vague topics, such as the peace of nature. | 1954.txt | 2 |
[
"Its market meltdown has been easily halted.",
"It has increased trade with the newspaper industry.",
"It has encountered utter failure since its stock debut.",
"Its shareholders have invested $ 50 billion in a social network."
] | What can be inferred about Facebook from the first paragraph? | It would be all too easy to say that Facebook's market meltdown is coming to an end. After all, Mark Zuckerberg's social network burned as much as $ 50 billion of shareholders' wealth in just a couple months. To put that in context, since its debut on NASDAQ in May, Facebook has lost value nearly equal to Yahoo, AOL, Zynga, Yelp, Pandora, OpenTable, Groupon, LinkedIn, and Angie's List combined, plus that of the bulk of the publicly traded newspaper industry:
As shocking as this utter failure may be to the nearly 1 billion faithful Facebook users around the world, it's no surprise to anyone who read the initial public offering (IPO) prospectus. Worse still, all the crises that emerged when the company debuted-overpriced shares, poor corporate governance, huge challenges to the core business, and a damaged brand-remain today. Facebook looks like a prime example of what Wall Street calls a falling knife-that is, one that can cost investors their fingers if they try to catch it.
Start with the valuation. To justify a stock price close to the lower end of the projected range in the IPO, say $ 28 a share, Facebook's future growth would have needed to match that of Google seven years earlier. That would have required increasing revenue by some 80 percent annually and maintaining high profit margins all the while.
That's not happening. In the first half of 2012, Facebook reported revenue of $ 2.24 billion, up 38 percent from the same period in 2011. At the same time, the company's costs surged to $ 2.6 billion in the six-month period.
This so-so performance reflects the Achilles' heel of Facebook's business model, which the company clearly stated in a list of risk factors associated with its IPO: it hasn't yet figured out how to advertise effectively on mobile devices, The number of Facebook users accessing the site on their phones surged by67 percent to 543 million in the last quarter, or more than half its customer base.
Numbers are only part of the problem. The mounting pile of failure creates a negative feedback loop that threatens Facebook's future in other ways. Indeed, the more Facebook's disappointment in the market is catalogued, the worse Facebook's image becomes. Not only does that threaten to rub off on users, it's bad for recruitment and retention of talented hackers, who are the lifeblood of Zuckerberg's creation.
Yet the brilliant CEO can ignore the sadness and complaints of his shareholders thanks to the super- voting stock he holds. This arrangement also was fully disclosed at the time of the offering. It's a pity so few investors apparently bothered to do their homework. | 879.txt | 2 |
[
"have been disclosed in the IPO prospectus",
"are the universal risks Wall Street confronts",
"disappoint its faithful users",
"have existed for a long time"
] | The crises Facebook is facing _ | It would be all too easy to say that Facebook's market meltdown is coming to an end. After all, Mark Zuckerberg's social network burned as much as $ 50 billion of shareholders' wealth in just a couple months. To put that in context, since its debut on NASDAQ in May, Facebook has lost value nearly equal to Yahoo, AOL, Zynga, Yelp, Pandora, OpenTable, Groupon, LinkedIn, and Angie's List combined, plus that of the bulk of the publicly traded newspaper industry:
As shocking as this utter failure may be to the nearly 1 billion faithful Facebook users around the world, it's no surprise to anyone who read the initial public offering (IPO) prospectus. Worse still, all the crises that emerged when the company debuted-overpriced shares, poor corporate governance, huge challenges to the core business, and a damaged brand-remain today. Facebook looks like a prime example of what Wall Street calls a falling knife-that is, one that can cost investors their fingers if they try to catch it.
Start with the valuation. To justify a stock price close to the lower end of the projected range in the IPO, say $ 28 a share, Facebook's future growth would have needed to match that of Google seven years earlier. That would have required increasing revenue by some 80 percent annually and maintaining high profit margins all the while.
That's not happening. In the first half of 2012, Facebook reported revenue of $ 2.24 billion, up 38 percent from the same period in 2011. At the same time, the company's costs surged to $ 2.6 billion in the six-month period.
This so-so performance reflects the Achilles' heel of Facebook's business model, which the company clearly stated in a list of risk factors associated with its IPO: it hasn't yet figured out how to advertise effectively on mobile devices, The number of Facebook users accessing the site on their phones surged by67 percent to 543 million in the last quarter, or more than half its customer base.
Numbers are only part of the problem. The mounting pile of failure creates a negative feedback loop that threatens Facebook's future in other ways. Indeed, the more Facebook's disappointment in the market is catalogued, the worse Facebook's image becomes. Not only does that threaten to rub off on users, it's bad for recruitment and retention of talented hackers, who are the lifeblood of Zuckerberg's creation.
Yet the brilliant CEO can ignore the sadness and complaints of his shareholders thanks to the super- voting stock he holds. This arrangement also was fully disclosed at the time of the offering. It's a pity so few investors apparently bothered to do their homework. | 879.txt | 3 |
[
"narrow the IPO price range",
"cooperate with Google",
"keep enormously profitable",
"invest additional $ 2.6 billion"
] | To make its stock price reasonable, Facebook has to _ | It would be all too easy to say that Facebook's market meltdown is coming to an end. After all, Mark Zuckerberg's social network burned as much as $ 50 billion of shareholders' wealth in just a couple months. To put that in context, since its debut on NASDAQ in May, Facebook has lost value nearly equal to Yahoo, AOL, Zynga, Yelp, Pandora, OpenTable, Groupon, LinkedIn, and Angie's List combined, plus that of the bulk of the publicly traded newspaper industry:
As shocking as this utter failure may be to the nearly 1 billion faithful Facebook users around the world, it's no surprise to anyone who read the initial public offering (IPO) prospectus. Worse still, all the crises that emerged when the company debuted-overpriced shares, poor corporate governance, huge challenges to the core business, and a damaged brand-remain today. Facebook looks like a prime example of what Wall Street calls a falling knife-that is, one that can cost investors their fingers if they try to catch it.
Start with the valuation. To justify a stock price close to the lower end of the projected range in the IPO, say $ 28 a share, Facebook's future growth would have needed to match that of Google seven years earlier. That would have required increasing revenue by some 80 percent annually and maintaining high profit margins all the while.
That's not happening. In the first half of 2012, Facebook reported revenue of $ 2.24 billion, up 38 percent from the same period in 2011. At the same time, the company's costs surged to $ 2.6 billion in the six-month period.
This so-so performance reflects the Achilles' heel of Facebook's business model, which the company clearly stated in a list of risk factors associated with its IPO: it hasn't yet figured out how to advertise effectively on mobile devices, The number of Facebook users accessing the site on their phones surged by67 percent to 543 million in the last quarter, or more than half its customer base.
Numbers are only part of the problem. The mounting pile of failure creates a negative feedback loop that threatens Facebook's future in other ways. Indeed, the more Facebook's disappointment in the market is catalogued, the worse Facebook's image becomes. Not only does that threaten to rub off on users, it's bad for recruitment and retention of talented hackers, who are the lifeblood of Zuckerberg's creation.
Yet the brilliant CEO can ignore the sadness and complaints of his shareholders thanks to the super- voting stock he holds. This arrangement also was fully disclosed at the time of the offering. It's a pity so few investors apparently bothered to do their homework. | 879.txt | 2 |
[
"deadly weakness",
"problem unsolved",
"indisputable fact",
"potential risk"
] | It can be inferred from the context that the "Achilles' heel" (Line 1, Para. 5) refers to _ | It would be all too easy to say that Facebook's market meltdown is coming to an end. After all, Mark Zuckerberg's social network burned as much as $ 50 billion of shareholders' wealth in just a couple months. To put that in context, since its debut on NASDAQ in May, Facebook has lost value nearly equal to Yahoo, AOL, Zynga, Yelp, Pandora, OpenTable, Groupon, LinkedIn, and Angie's List combined, plus that of the bulk of the publicly traded newspaper industry:
As shocking as this utter failure may be to the nearly 1 billion faithful Facebook users around the world, it's no surprise to anyone who read the initial public offering (IPO) prospectus. Worse still, all the crises that emerged when the company debuted-overpriced shares, poor corporate governance, huge challenges to the core business, and a damaged brand-remain today. Facebook looks like a prime example of what Wall Street calls a falling knife-that is, one that can cost investors their fingers if they try to catch it.
Start with the valuation. To justify a stock price close to the lower end of the projected range in the IPO, say $ 28 a share, Facebook's future growth would have needed to match that of Google seven years earlier. That would have required increasing revenue by some 80 percent annually and maintaining high profit margins all the while.
That's not happening. In the first half of 2012, Facebook reported revenue of $ 2.24 billion, up 38 percent from the same period in 2011. At the same time, the company's costs surged to $ 2.6 billion in the six-month period.
This so-so performance reflects the Achilles' heel of Facebook's business model, which the company clearly stated in a list of risk factors associated with its IPO: it hasn't yet figured out how to advertise effectively on mobile devices, The number of Facebook users accessing the site on their phones surged by67 percent to 543 million in the last quarter, or more than half its customer base.
Numbers are only part of the problem. The mounting pile of failure creates a negative feedback loop that threatens Facebook's future in other ways. Indeed, the more Facebook's disappointment in the market is catalogued, the worse Facebook's image becomes. Not only does that threaten to rub off on users, it's bad for recruitment and retention of talented hackers, who are the lifeblood of Zuckerberg's creation.
Yet the brilliant CEO can ignore the sadness and complaints of his shareholders thanks to the super- voting stock he holds. This arrangement also was fully disclosed at the time of the offering. It's a pity so few investors apparently bothered to do their homework. | 879.txt | 0 |
[
"Its users' benefits will be threatened.",
"Talented hackers will take down the website.",
"The CEO will hold the super-voting stock.",
"The company's innovation strength will be damaged."
] | What effect will Facebook's failure in the market have? | It would be all too easy to say that Facebook's market meltdown is coming to an end. After all, Mark Zuckerberg's social network burned as much as $ 50 billion of shareholders' wealth in just a couple months. To put that in context, since its debut on NASDAQ in May, Facebook has lost value nearly equal to Yahoo, AOL, Zynga, Yelp, Pandora, OpenTable, Groupon, LinkedIn, and Angie's List combined, plus that of the bulk of the publicly traded newspaper industry:
As shocking as this utter failure may be to the nearly 1 billion faithful Facebook users around the world, it's no surprise to anyone who read the initial public offering (IPO) prospectus. Worse still, all the crises that emerged when the company debuted-overpriced shares, poor corporate governance, huge challenges to the core business, and a damaged brand-remain today. Facebook looks like a prime example of what Wall Street calls a falling knife-that is, one that can cost investors their fingers if they try to catch it.
Start with the valuation. To justify a stock price close to the lower end of the projected range in the IPO, say $ 28 a share, Facebook's future growth would have needed to match that of Google seven years earlier. That would have required increasing revenue by some 80 percent annually and maintaining high profit margins all the while.
That's not happening. In the first half of 2012, Facebook reported revenue of $ 2.24 billion, up 38 percent from the same period in 2011. At the same time, the company's costs surged to $ 2.6 billion in the six-month period.
This so-so performance reflects the Achilles' heel of Facebook's business model, which the company clearly stated in a list of risk factors associated with its IPO: it hasn't yet figured out how to advertise effectively on mobile devices, The number of Facebook users accessing the site on their phones surged by67 percent to 543 million in the last quarter, or more than half its customer base.
Numbers are only part of the problem. The mounting pile of failure creates a negative feedback loop that threatens Facebook's future in other ways. Indeed, the more Facebook's disappointment in the market is catalogued, the worse Facebook's image becomes. Not only does that threaten to rub off on users, it's bad for recruitment and retention of talented hackers, who are the lifeblood of Zuckerberg's creation.
Yet the brilliant CEO can ignore the sadness and complaints of his shareholders thanks to the super- voting stock he holds. This arrangement also was fully disclosed at the time of the offering. It's a pity so few investors apparently bothered to do their homework. | 879.txt | 3 |
[
"he thought scientific research is useless in the long term.",
"he thought launching people into space was not the first priority.",
"he thought NASA should manage its own business.",
"he thought research was not so practical."
] | George Bush redirected NASA away from scientific research because _ | Launching people into space may make headlines but it does little useful science. So when George Bush redirected America's space agency, NASA, away from scientific research and towards a manned return to the moon in 2004, many scientists were disappointed. Now the agency has finally offered some small morsels of comfort in the form of four projects that could accompany efforts for a lunar return.
The most exciting of these is the plan for a radio telescope that could be placed on the far side of the moon. Such a device would look back at the early universe to the time when large-scale structures such as galaxies and stars formed. A lunar-based radio telescope would be able to detect long wavelengths that cannot be sensed on Earth because they are absorbed by the outermost layers of the planet's atmosphere. Moreover by pointing the telescope away from the din of shorter-wavelength radio waves that are used for communication on Earth, astrophysicists would be able to see the early universe in unprecedented detail.
Finding alien life might also be possible with such a telescope. It would be able to map the magnetic fields of stars and exoplanets (planets that circle stars outside the solar system). It is the magnetic field of the Earth that protects its inhabitants from being bombarded by high-energy particles from space that would otherwise leave the planet sterile. Detecting a magnetic field surrounding an Earth-like exoplanet would prove a promising sign for finding extraterrestrial life.
The proposal, led by Joseph Lazio, of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC, is to create an array of three arms arranged in a Y-shape, each of which would be 500 metres long and contain 16 antennae. Each arm would be made of a plastic film that could be rolled out onto the surface of the moon, either by robots or by astronauts.
A second project, headed by Michael Collier, of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre, would examine how the solar wind-a stream of charged particles ejected from the sun-interacts with the tenuous lunar atmosphere close to the moon's surface. Such bombardment produces low-energy X-rays that would be detected on the surface of the moon.
The third and fourth projects are similar both to each other and to earlier ventures dropped on the moon by the Apollo and the Soviet Luna missions in the late 1960s and 1970s. Some 35 years on, reflectors placed on the lunar surface are still used by scientists interested in geophysics and geodesy (for example, how the moon's gravitational field shifts over time). Most of the reflectors are clustered close to the lunar equator. The proposals, led by Stephen Merkowitz, also of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre, and Douglas Currie, of the University of Maryland, are to sprinkle some more sophisticated versions over more of the moon's surface.
Such efforts may attract little attention compared with the launch of the space shuttle Endeavour this week. Nevertheless, when NASA argues that putting people into space inspires young people to study science, it is precisely these endeavours that it wishes to encourage. | 3583.txt | 3 |
[
"The radio telescope could look back at the structures of galaxies and stars when they were firstly formed.",
"The device would be interfering with shorter-wavelength radio waves used for communication on Earth.",
"The device could protect long wavelength from being absorbed by the outermost layers of the planet's atmosphere.",
"The device could have unique functions mainly because of the position it would be adjusted."
] | Which one of the following statements is TURE of the radio telescope? | Launching people into space may make headlines but it does little useful science. So when George Bush redirected America's space agency, NASA, away from scientific research and towards a manned return to the moon in 2004, many scientists were disappointed. Now the agency has finally offered some small morsels of comfort in the form of four projects that could accompany efforts for a lunar return.
The most exciting of these is the plan for a radio telescope that could be placed on the far side of the moon. Such a device would look back at the early universe to the time when large-scale structures such as galaxies and stars formed. A lunar-based radio telescope would be able to detect long wavelengths that cannot be sensed on Earth because they are absorbed by the outermost layers of the planet's atmosphere. Moreover by pointing the telescope away from the din of shorter-wavelength radio waves that are used for communication on Earth, astrophysicists would be able to see the early universe in unprecedented detail.
Finding alien life might also be possible with such a telescope. It would be able to map the magnetic fields of stars and exoplanets (planets that circle stars outside the solar system). It is the magnetic field of the Earth that protects its inhabitants from being bombarded by high-energy particles from space that would otherwise leave the planet sterile. Detecting a magnetic field surrounding an Earth-like exoplanet would prove a promising sign for finding extraterrestrial life.
The proposal, led by Joseph Lazio, of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC, is to create an array of three arms arranged in a Y-shape, each of which would be 500 metres long and contain 16 antennae. Each arm would be made of a plastic film that could be rolled out onto the surface of the moon, either by robots or by astronauts.
A second project, headed by Michael Collier, of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre, would examine how the solar wind-a stream of charged particles ejected from the sun-interacts with the tenuous lunar atmosphere close to the moon's surface. Such bombardment produces low-energy X-rays that would be detected on the surface of the moon.
The third and fourth projects are similar both to each other and to earlier ventures dropped on the moon by the Apollo and the Soviet Luna missions in the late 1960s and 1970s. Some 35 years on, reflectors placed on the lunar surface are still used by scientists interested in geophysics and geodesy (for example, how the moon's gravitational field shifts over time). Most of the reflectors are clustered close to the lunar equator. The proposals, led by Stephen Merkowitz, also of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre, and Douglas Currie, of the University of Maryland, are to sprinkle some more sophisticated versions over more of the moon's surface.
Such efforts may attract little attention compared with the launch of the space shuttle Endeavour this week. Nevertheless, when NASA argues that putting people into space inspires young people to study science, it is precisely these endeavours that it wishes to encourage. | 3583.txt | 3 |
[
"it could let the astrophysicists examine all the planets in unprecedented detail.",
"it could find out the magnetic field which could protect beings from being attacked by space particles.",
"it could detect any star and exoplanet surrounding the Earth.",
"it could search out the promising sign for finding extraterrestrial life."
] | The radio telescope might also be useful in searching for extraterrestrial beings in that _ | Launching people into space may make headlines but it does little useful science. So when George Bush redirected America's space agency, NASA, away from scientific research and towards a manned return to the moon in 2004, many scientists were disappointed. Now the agency has finally offered some small morsels of comfort in the form of four projects that could accompany efforts for a lunar return.
The most exciting of these is the plan for a radio telescope that could be placed on the far side of the moon. Such a device would look back at the early universe to the time when large-scale structures such as galaxies and stars formed. A lunar-based radio telescope would be able to detect long wavelengths that cannot be sensed on Earth because they are absorbed by the outermost layers of the planet's atmosphere. Moreover by pointing the telescope away from the din of shorter-wavelength radio waves that are used for communication on Earth, astrophysicists would be able to see the early universe in unprecedented detail.
Finding alien life might also be possible with such a telescope. It would be able to map the magnetic fields of stars and exoplanets (planets that circle stars outside the solar system). It is the magnetic field of the Earth that protects its inhabitants from being bombarded by high-energy particles from space that would otherwise leave the planet sterile. Detecting a magnetic field surrounding an Earth-like exoplanet would prove a promising sign for finding extraterrestrial life.
The proposal, led by Joseph Lazio, of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC, is to create an array of three arms arranged in a Y-shape, each of which would be 500 metres long and contain 16 antennae. Each arm would be made of a plastic film that could be rolled out onto the surface of the moon, either by robots or by astronauts.
A second project, headed by Michael Collier, of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre, would examine how the solar wind-a stream of charged particles ejected from the sun-interacts with the tenuous lunar atmosphere close to the moon's surface. Such bombardment produces low-energy X-rays that would be detected on the surface of the moon.
The third and fourth projects are similar both to each other and to earlier ventures dropped on the moon by the Apollo and the Soviet Luna missions in the late 1960s and 1970s. Some 35 years on, reflectors placed on the lunar surface are still used by scientists interested in geophysics and geodesy (for example, how the moon's gravitational field shifts over time). Most of the reflectors are clustered close to the lunar equator. The proposals, led by Stephen Merkowitz, also of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre, and Douglas Currie, of the University of Maryland, are to sprinkle some more sophisticated versions over more of the moon's surface.
Such efforts may attract little attention compared with the launch of the space shuttle Endeavour this week. Nevertheless, when NASA argues that putting people into space inspires young people to study science, it is precisely these endeavours that it wishes to encourage. | 3583.txt | 1 |
[
"slender.",
"dilute.",
"flimsy.",
"thick."
] | The word "tenuous" (Line 3, Paragraph 5) most probably means _ | Launching people into space may make headlines but it does little useful science. So when George Bush redirected America's space agency, NASA, away from scientific research and towards a manned return to the moon in 2004, many scientists were disappointed. Now the agency has finally offered some small morsels of comfort in the form of four projects that could accompany efforts for a lunar return.
The most exciting of these is the plan for a radio telescope that could be placed on the far side of the moon. Such a device would look back at the early universe to the time when large-scale structures such as galaxies and stars formed. A lunar-based radio telescope would be able to detect long wavelengths that cannot be sensed on Earth because they are absorbed by the outermost layers of the planet's atmosphere. Moreover by pointing the telescope away from the din of shorter-wavelength radio waves that are used for communication on Earth, astrophysicists would be able to see the early universe in unprecedented detail.
Finding alien life might also be possible with such a telescope. It would be able to map the magnetic fields of stars and exoplanets (planets that circle stars outside the solar system). It is the magnetic field of the Earth that protects its inhabitants from being bombarded by high-energy particles from space that would otherwise leave the planet sterile. Detecting a magnetic field surrounding an Earth-like exoplanet would prove a promising sign for finding extraterrestrial life.
The proposal, led by Joseph Lazio, of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC, is to create an array of three arms arranged in a Y-shape, each of which would be 500 metres long and contain 16 antennae. Each arm would be made of a plastic film that could be rolled out onto the surface of the moon, either by robots or by astronauts.
A second project, headed by Michael Collier, of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre, would examine how the solar wind-a stream of charged particles ejected from the sun-interacts with the tenuous lunar atmosphere close to the moon's surface. Such bombardment produces low-energy X-rays that would be detected on the surface of the moon.
The third and fourth projects are similar both to each other and to earlier ventures dropped on the moon by the Apollo and the Soviet Luna missions in the late 1960s and 1970s. Some 35 years on, reflectors placed on the lunar surface are still used by scientists interested in geophysics and geodesy (for example, how the moon's gravitational field shifts over time). Most of the reflectors are clustered close to the lunar equator. The proposals, led by Stephen Merkowitz, also of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre, and Douglas Currie, of the University of Maryland, are to sprinkle some more sophisticated versions over more of the moon's surface.
Such efforts may attract little attention compared with the launch of the space shuttle Endeavour this week. Nevertheless, when NASA argues that putting people into space inspires young people to study science, it is precisely these endeavours that it wishes to encourage. | 3583.txt | 1 |
[
"the position of the reflectors remains on the lunar surface.",
"more advanced applications will be adopted for research.",
"the scope of reflectors will be expanded on the lunar equator.",
"more surface of the moon will be covered."
] | The third and fourth projects are different from earlier ventures dropped on the moon in the following aspects except _ | Launching people into space may make headlines but it does little useful science. So when George Bush redirected America's space agency, NASA, away from scientific research and towards a manned return to the moon in 2004, many scientists were disappointed. Now the agency has finally offered some small morsels of comfort in the form of four projects that could accompany efforts for a lunar return.
The most exciting of these is the plan for a radio telescope that could be placed on the far side of the moon. Such a device would look back at the early universe to the time when large-scale structures such as galaxies and stars formed. A lunar-based radio telescope would be able to detect long wavelengths that cannot be sensed on Earth because they are absorbed by the outermost layers of the planet's atmosphere. Moreover by pointing the telescope away from the din of shorter-wavelength radio waves that are used for communication on Earth, astrophysicists would be able to see the early universe in unprecedented detail.
Finding alien life might also be possible with such a telescope. It would be able to map the magnetic fields of stars and exoplanets (planets that circle stars outside the solar system). It is the magnetic field of the Earth that protects its inhabitants from being bombarded by high-energy particles from space that would otherwise leave the planet sterile. Detecting a magnetic field surrounding an Earth-like exoplanet would prove a promising sign for finding extraterrestrial life.
The proposal, led by Joseph Lazio, of the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, DC, is to create an array of three arms arranged in a Y-shape, each of which would be 500 metres long and contain 16 antennae. Each arm would be made of a plastic film that could be rolled out onto the surface of the moon, either by robots or by astronauts.
A second project, headed by Michael Collier, of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre, would examine how the solar wind-a stream of charged particles ejected from the sun-interacts with the tenuous lunar atmosphere close to the moon's surface. Such bombardment produces low-energy X-rays that would be detected on the surface of the moon.
The third and fourth projects are similar both to each other and to earlier ventures dropped on the moon by the Apollo and the Soviet Luna missions in the late 1960s and 1970s. Some 35 years on, reflectors placed on the lunar surface are still used by scientists interested in geophysics and geodesy (for example, how the moon's gravitational field shifts over time). Most of the reflectors are clustered close to the lunar equator. The proposals, led by Stephen Merkowitz, also of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre, and Douglas Currie, of the University of Maryland, are to sprinkle some more sophisticated versions over more of the moon's surface.
Such efforts may attract little attention compared with the launch of the space shuttle Endeavour this week. Nevertheless, when NASA argues that putting people into space inspires young people to study science, it is precisely these endeavours that it wishes to encourage. | 3583.txt | 0 |
[
"to a party",
"to his office",
"home after work",
"to work from home"
] | Mr Williams was driving _ one evening. | As one comes to some crossroads, he or she sees a sign which says that drivers have to stop when they come to the main road ahead.At other crossroads, drivers have to go slow, but they do not actually have to stop unless, of course, there is something coming along the main road; and at still others, they do not have either to stop or to go slow, because they are themselves on the main road.
Mr Williams, who was always a very careful driver, was driving home from work one evening when he came to a crossroad. It had a " SLOW" sign. He slowed down when he came to the main road, looked both ways to see that nothing was coming, and then drove across without stopping completely.
At once he heard a police whistle , so he pulled into the side of the road and stopped. A policeman walked over to him with a notebook and a pen in his hand and said, " You didn't stop at that crossing."
" But the sign there doesn't say ‘STOP'." answered Mr Williams, " It just says ‘SLOW', and I did go slow."
The policeman looked around him, and a look of surprise came over his face. Then he put his notebook and pen away, scratched his head and said, " Well, I'm in the wrong street！" | 661.txt | 2 |
[
"was driving at a high speed",
"was driving onto the main road",
"was going to stop his car",
"was driving slowly"
] | When he was stopped by a policeman, he _ . | As one comes to some crossroads, he or she sees a sign which says that drivers have to stop when they come to the main road ahead.At other crossroads, drivers have to go slow, but they do not actually have to stop unless, of course, there is something coming along the main road; and at still others, they do not have either to stop or to go slow, because they are themselves on the main road.
Mr Williams, who was always a very careful driver, was driving home from work one evening when he came to a crossroad. It had a " SLOW" sign. He slowed down when he came to the main road, looked both ways to see that nothing was coming, and then drove across without stopping completely.
At once he heard a police whistle , so he pulled into the side of the road and stopped. A policeman walked over to him with a notebook and a pen in his hand and said, " You didn't stop at that crossing."
" But the sign there doesn't say ‘STOP'." answered Mr Williams, " It just says ‘SLOW', and I did go slow."
The policeman looked around him, and a look of surprise came over his face. Then he put his notebook and pen away, scratched his head and said, " Well, I'm in the wrong street！" | 661.txt | 1 |
[
"he didn't see any \" STOP\" sign there",
"he paid no attention to the traffic rules",
"he didn't have to stop",
"he was eager to get home"
] | Though slowly, Mr Williams continued driving at the crossing because _ . | As one comes to some crossroads, he or she sees a sign which says that drivers have to stop when they come to the main road ahead.At other crossroads, drivers have to go slow, but they do not actually have to stop unless, of course, there is something coming along the main road; and at still others, they do not have either to stop or to go slow, because they are themselves on the main road.
Mr Williams, who was always a very careful driver, was driving home from work one evening when he came to a crossroad. It had a " SLOW" sign. He slowed down when he came to the main road, looked both ways to see that nothing was coming, and then drove across without stopping completely.
At once he heard a police whistle , so he pulled into the side of the road and stopped. A policeman walked over to him with a notebook and a pen in his hand and said, " You didn't stop at that crossing."
" But the sign there doesn't say ‘STOP'." answered Mr Williams, " It just says ‘SLOW', and I did go slow."
The policeman looked around him, and a look of surprise came over his face. Then he put his notebook and pen away, scratched his head and said, " Well, I'm in the wrong street！" | 661.txt | 2 |
[
"he met a mad man",
"he realized that he himself was mistaken",
"Mr Williams dared to speak to him like that",
"Mr Williams would not apologize to him"
] | Looking round Mr Williams, the policeman was surprised because _ . | As one comes to some crossroads, he or she sees a sign which says that drivers have to stop when they come to the main road ahead.At other crossroads, drivers have to go slow, but they do not actually have to stop unless, of course, there is something coming along the main road; and at still others, they do not have either to stop or to go slow, because they are themselves on the main road.
Mr Williams, who was always a very careful driver, was driving home from work one evening when he came to a crossroad. It had a " SLOW" sign. He slowed down when he came to the main road, looked both ways to see that nothing was coming, and then drove across without stopping completely.
At once he heard a police whistle , so he pulled into the side of the road and stopped. A policeman walked over to him with a notebook and a pen in his hand and said, " You didn't stop at that crossing."
" But the sign there doesn't say ‘STOP'." answered Mr Williams, " It just says ‘SLOW', and I did go slow."
The policeman looked around him, and a look of surprise came over his face. Then he put his notebook and pen away, scratched his head and said, " Well, I'm in the wrong street！" | 661.txt | 1 |
[
"Lack of money.",
"Subprime crisis.",
"Unemployment.",
"Social instability."
] | What do many people think is the biggest problem facing Janet Yellen? | When the right person is holding the right job at the right moment, that person's influence is greatly expanded. That is the position in which Janet Yellen, who is expected to be confirmed as the next chair of the Federal Reserve Bank (FeD. in January, now finds herself. If you believe, as many do, that unemployment is the major economic and social concern of our day, then it is no stretch to think Yellen is the most powerful person in the world right now.
Throughout the 2008 financial crisis and the recession and recovery that followed, central banks have taken on the role of stimulators of last resort, holding up the global economy with vast amounts of money in the form of asset buying. Yellen, previously a Fed vice chair, was one of the principal architects of the Fed's $ 3.8 trillion money dump. A star economist known for her groundbreaking work on labor markets, Yellen was a kind of prophetess early on in thc crisis for her warnings about the subprime meltdown. Now it will be her job to get the Fed and the markets out of the biggest and most unconventional monetary program in history without derailing the fragile recovery.The good news is that Yellen,67, is particularly well suited to meet these challenges. She has a keen understanding of financial markets, an appreciation for their imperfections and a strong belief that human suffering was more related to unemployment than anything else.
Some experts worry that Yellen will be inclined to chase unemployment to the neglect of inflation.
But with wages still relatively flat and the economy increasingly divided between the well-off and the long-term unemployed, more people worry about the opposite, deflation that would aggravate the economy's problems.
Either way, the incoming Fed chief will have to walk a fine line in slowly ending the stimulus. It must be steady enough to deflate bubbles and bring markets back down to earth but not so quick thatit creates another credit crisis.
Unlike many past Fed leaders, Yellen is not one to buy into the finance industry's argument that itshould be left alone to regulate itself. She knows all along the Fed has been too slack on regulation of finance. Yellen is likely to address the issue right after she pushes unemployment below 6%, stabilizes markets and makes sure that the recovery is more inclusive and robust. As Princeton Professor Alan Blinder says, "She's smart as a whip, deeply logical, willing to argue but also a good listener. She can persuade without creating hostility." All those traits will be useful as the global economy's new power player takes on its most annoying problems. | 1519.txt | 2 |
[
"Take effective measures to curb inflation.",
"Deflate the bubbles in the American economy.",
"Formulate policies to help financial institutions.",
"Pour money into the market through asset buying."
] | What did Yellen help the Fed do to tackle the 2008 financial crisis? | When the right person is holding the right job at the right moment, that person's influence is greatly expanded. That is the position in which Janet Yellen, who is expected to be confirmed as the next chair of the Federal Reserve Bank (FeD. in January, now finds herself. If you believe, as many do, that unemployment is the major economic and social concern of our day, then it is no stretch to think Yellen is the most powerful person in the world right now.
Throughout the 2008 financial crisis and the recession and recovery that followed, central banks have taken on the role of stimulators of last resort, holding up the global economy with vast amounts of money in the form of asset buying. Yellen, previously a Fed vice chair, was one of the principal architects of the Fed's $ 3.8 trillion money dump. A star economist known for her groundbreaking work on labor markets, Yellen was a kind of prophetess early on in thc crisis for her warnings about the subprime meltdown. Now it will be her job to get the Fed and the markets out of the biggest and most unconventional monetary program in history without derailing the fragile recovery.The good news is that Yellen,67, is particularly well suited to meet these challenges. She has a keen understanding of financial markets, an appreciation for their imperfections and a strong belief that human suffering was more related to unemployment than anything else.
Some experts worry that Yellen will be inclined to chase unemployment to the neglect of inflation.
But with wages still relatively flat and the economy increasingly divided between the well-off and the long-term unemployed, more people worry about the opposite, deflation that would aggravate the economy's problems.
Either way, the incoming Fed chief will have to walk a fine line in slowly ending the stimulus. It must be steady enough to deflate bubbles and bring markets back down to earth but not so quick thatit creates another credit crisis.
Unlike many past Fed leaders, Yellen is not one to buy into the finance industry's argument that itshould be left alone to regulate itself. She knows all along the Fed has been too slack on regulation of finance. Yellen is likely to address the issue right after she pushes unemployment below 6%, stabilizes markets and makes sure that the recovery is more inclusive and robust. As Princeton Professor Alan Blinder says, "She's smart as a whip, deeply logical, willing to argue but also a good listener. She can persuade without creating hostility." All those traits will be useful as the global economy's new power player takes on its most annoying problems. | 1519.txt | 3 |
[
"Recession.",
"Deflation.",
"Inequality.",
"Income."
] | What is a greater concern of the general public? | When the right person is holding the right job at the right moment, that person's influence is greatly expanded. That is the position in which Janet Yellen, who is expected to be confirmed as the next chair of the Federal Reserve Bank (FeD. in January, now finds herself. If you believe, as many do, that unemployment is the major economic and social concern of our day, then it is no stretch to think Yellen is the most powerful person in the world right now.
Throughout the 2008 financial crisis and the recession and recovery that followed, central banks have taken on the role of stimulators of last resort, holding up the global economy with vast amounts of money in the form of asset buying. Yellen, previously a Fed vice chair, was one of the principal architects of the Fed's $ 3.8 trillion money dump. A star economist known for her groundbreaking work on labor markets, Yellen was a kind of prophetess early on in thc crisis for her warnings about the subprime meltdown. Now it will be her job to get the Fed and the markets out of the biggest and most unconventional monetary program in history without derailing the fragile recovery.The good news is that Yellen,67, is particularly well suited to meet these challenges. She has a keen understanding of financial markets, an appreciation for their imperfections and a strong belief that human suffering was more related to unemployment than anything else.
Some experts worry that Yellen will be inclined to chase unemployment to the neglect of inflation.
But with wages still relatively flat and the economy increasingly divided between the well-off and the long-term unemployed, more people worry about the opposite, deflation that would aggravate the economy's problems.
Either way, the incoming Fed chief will have to walk a fine line in slowly ending the stimulus. It must be steady enough to deflate bubbles and bring markets back down to earth but not so quick thatit creates another credit crisis.
Unlike many past Fed leaders, Yellen is not one to buy into the finance industry's argument that itshould be left alone to regulate itself. She knows all along the Fed has been too slack on regulation of finance. Yellen is likely to address the issue right after she pushes unemployment below 6%, stabilizes markets and makes sure that the recovery is more inclusive and robust. As Princeton Professor Alan Blinder says, "She's smart as a whip, deeply logical, willing to argue but also a good listener. She can persuade without creating hostility." All those traits will be useful as the global economy's new power player takes on its most annoying problems. | 1519.txt | 1 |
[
"Develop a new monetary program.",
"Restore public confidence.",
"Tighten financial regulation.",
"Reform the credit system."
] | What is Yellen likely to do in her position as the Fed chief? | When the right person is holding the right job at the right moment, that person's influence is greatly expanded. That is the position in which Janet Yellen, who is expected to be confirmed as the next chair of the Federal Reserve Bank (FeD. in January, now finds herself. If you believe, as many do, that unemployment is the major economic and social concern of our day, then it is no stretch to think Yellen is the most powerful person in the world right now.
Throughout the 2008 financial crisis and the recession and recovery that followed, central banks have taken on the role of stimulators of last resort, holding up the global economy with vast amounts of money in the form of asset buying. Yellen, previously a Fed vice chair, was one of the principal architects of the Fed's $ 3.8 trillion money dump. A star economist known for her groundbreaking work on labor markets, Yellen was a kind of prophetess early on in thc crisis for her warnings about the subprime meltdown. Now it will be her job to get the Fed and the markets out of the biggest and most unconventional monetary program in history without derailing the fragile recovery.The good news is that Yellen,67, is particularly well suited to meet these challenges. She has a keen understanding of financial markets, an appreciation for their imperfections and a strong belief that human suffering was more related to unemployment than anything else.
Some experts worry that Yellen will be inclined to chase unemployment to the neglect of inflation.
But with wages still relatively flat and the economy increasingly divided between the well-off and the long-term unemployed, more people worry about the opposite, deflation that would aggravate the economy's problems.
Either way, the incoming Fed chief will have to walk a fine line in slowly ending the stimulus. It must be steady enough to deflate bubbles and bring markets back down to earth but not so quick thatit creates another credit crisis.
Unlike many past Fed leaders, Yellen is not one to buy into the finance industry's argument that itshould be left alone to regulate itself. She knows all along the Fed has been too slack on regulation of finance. Yellen is likely to address the issue right after she pushes unemployment below 6%, stabilizes markets and makes sure that the recovery is more inclusive and robust. As Princeton Professor Alan Blinder says, "She's smart as a whip, deeply logical, willing to argue but also a good listener. She can persuade without creating hostility." All those traits will be useful as the global economy's new power player takes on its most annoying problems. | 1519.txt | 2 |
[
"She possesses strong persuasive power.",
"She has confidence in what she is doing.",
"She is one of the world's greatest economists.",
"She is the most powerful Fed chief in history."
] | How does Alan Blinder portray Yellen? | When the right person is holding the right job at the right moment, that person's influence is greatly expanded. That is the position in which Janet Yellen, who is expected to be confirmed as the next chair of the Federal Reserve Bank (FeD. in January, now finds herself. If you believe, as many do, that unemployment is the major economic and social concern of our day, then it is no stretch to think Yellen is the most powerful person in the world right now.
Throughout the 2008 financial crisis and the recession and recovery that followed, central banks have taken on the role of stimulators of last resort, holding up the global economy with vast amounts of money in the form of asset buying. Yellen, previously a Fed vice chair, was one of the principal architects of the Fed's $ 3.8 trillion money dump. A star economist known for her groundbreaking work on labor markets, Yellen was a kind of prophetess early on in thc crisis for her warnings about the subprime meltdown. Now it will be her job to get the Fed and the markets out of the biggest and most unconventional monetary program in history without derailing the fragile recovery.The good news is that Yellen,67, is particularly well suited to meet these challenges. She has a keen understanding of financial markets, an appreciation for their imperfections and a strong belief that human suffering was more related to unemployment than anything else.
Some experts worry that Yellen will be inclined to chase unemployment to the neglect of inflation.
But with wages still relatively flat and the economy increasingly divided between the well-off and the long-term unemployed, more people worry about the opposite, deflation that would aggravate the economy's problems.
Either way, the incoming Fed chief will have to walk a fine line in slowly ending the stimulus. It must be steady enough to deflate bubbles and bring markets back down to earth but not so quick thatit creates another credit crisis.
Unlike many past Fed leaders, Yellen is not one to buy into the finance industry's argument that itshould be left alone to regulate itself. She knows all along the Fed has been too slack on regulation of finance. Yellen is likely to address the issue right after she pushes unemployment below 6%, stabilizes markets and makes sure that the recovery is more inclusive and robust. As Princeton Professor Alan Blinder says, "She's smart as a whip, deeply logical, willing to argue but also a good listener. She can persuade without creating hostility." All those traits will be useful as the global economy's new power player takes on its most annoying problems. | 1519.txt | 0 |
[
"Drug and Food",
"Cancer and Health",
"Food and Health",
"Health and Drug"
] | What is the best possible title of the passage? | The food we eat seems to have profound effects on our health.Although science has made enormous steps in making food more fit to eat ,it has, at the same time,made many foods unfit to eat. Some research has shown that perhaps eighty percent of all human illnesses are related to diet and forty percent of cancer is related to the diet as well,especially cancer of the colon. Different cultures are more likely to cause certain different illnesses because of the food that is characteristic in these cultures. That food is related to illness is nto a new discovery. In 1945, about 35 years ago, government researchers realized that nitrates, commonly used to preserve color in meats,and other food additivies,caused cancer. Yet, these carcinogenic additives remain in our food, and it becomes more difficult all the time to know which things on the packaging labels of processed food are helpful or harmful. The additives which we eat are not all so direct. Farmers often give penicillin to beef and living animals, and because of this ,penicillin has been found in the milk of treated cow. Sometimes similar drugs are given to animals not for medical purposes,but for financial reasons. The farmers are simply trying to fatten the animals in order to obtain a higher price on the market. Although the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) has tried repeatedly to control these procedures, the practices continue. | 3232.txt | 2 |
[
"Drugs are always given to animals for medical reasons",
"Some of the additives in our food are added to the food itself and some are given to the living animals",
"Researchers have known about the potential dangers of food additives for over thirty-five years.",
"Food may cause forty percent of cancer in world."
] | Which of the following statements is NOT ture? | The food we eat seems to have profound effects on our health.Although science has made enormous steps in making food more fit to eat ,it has, at the same time,made many foods unfit to eat. Some research has shown that perhaps eighty percent of all human illnesses are related to diet and forty percent of cancer is related to the diet as well,especially cancer of the colon. Different cultures are more likely to cause certain different illnesses because of the food that is characteristic in these cultures. That food is related to illness is nto a new discovery. In 1945, about 35 years ago, government researchers realized that nitrates, commonly used to preserve color in meats,and other food additivies,caused cancer. Yet, these carcinogenic additives remain in our food, and it becomes more difficult all the time to know which things on the packaging labels of processed food are helpful or harmful. The additives which we eat are not all so direct. Farmers often give penicillin to beef and living animals, and because of this ,penicillin has been found in the milk of treated cow. Sometimes similar drugs are given to animals not for medical purposes,but for financial reasons. The farmers are simply trying to fatten the animals in order to obtain a higher price on the market. Although the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) has tried repeatedly to control these procedures, the practices continue. | 3232.txt | 0 |
[
"Because of science , diseases caused by polluted food haven been virtually eliminated.",
"It has caused a lack of information concerning the value of food.",
"Because of the application of science,some potentially harmful substances have been added to food.",
"The scientists have preserved the color of meats,but not of vegetables."
] | How has science done something harmful to mankind? | The food we eat seems to have profound effects on our health.Although science has made enormous steps in making food more fit to eat ,it has, at the same time,made many foods unfit to eat. Some research has shown that perhaps eighty percent of all human illnesses are related to diet and forty percent of cancer is related to the diet as well,especially cancer of the colon. Different cultures are more likely to cause certain different illnesses because of the food that is characteristic in these cultures. That food is related to illness is nto a new discovery. In 1945, about 35 years ago, government researchers realized that nitrates, commonly used to preserve color in meats,and other food additivies,caused cancer. Yet, these carcinogenic additives remain in our food, and it becomes more difficult all the time to know which things on the packaging labels of processed food are helpful or harmful. The additives which we eat are not all so direct. Farmers often give penicillin to beef and living animals, and because of this ,penicillin has been found in the milk of treated cow. Sometimes similar drugs are given to animals not for medical purposes,but for financial reasons. The farmers are simply trying to fatten the animals in order to obtain a higher price on the market. Although the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) has tried repeatedly to control these procedures, the practices continue. | 3232.txt | 2 |
[
"They preserve flavor in packaged foods.",
"They preserve the color of meats.",
"They are the objects of research.",
"They cause the animals to become fatter."
] | What are nitrates used for? | The food we eat seems to have profound effects on our health.Although science has made enormous steps in making food more fit to eat ,it has, at the same time,made many foods unfit to eat. Some research has shown that perhaps eighty percent of all human illnesses are related to diet and forty percent of cancer is related to the diet as well,especially cancer of the colon. Different cultures are more likely to cause certain different illnesses because of the food that is characteristic in these cultures. That food is related to illness is nto a new discovery. In 1945, about 35 years ago, government researchers realized that nitrates, commonly used to preserve color in meats,and other food additivies,caused cancer. Yet, these carcinogenic additives remain in our food, and it becomes more difficult all the time to know which things on the packaging labels of processed food are helpful or harmful. The additives which we eat are not all so direct. Farmers often give penicillin to beef and living animals, and because of this ,penicillin has been found in the milk of treated cow. Sometimes similar drugs are given to animals not for medical purposes,but for financial reasons. The farmers are simply trying to fatten the animals in order to obtain a higher price on the market. Although the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) has tried repeatedly to control these procedures, the practices continue. | 3232.txt | 1 |
[
"trouble-making",
"color-retaining",
"money-making",
"cancer-causing"
] | The word 'carcinogenic' most nearly means ' _ '. | The food we eat seems to have profound effects on our health.Although science has made enormous steps in making food more fit to eat ,it has, at the same time,made many foods unfit to eat. Some research has shown that perhaps eighty percent of all human illnesses are related to diet and forty percent of cancer is related to the diet as well,especially cancer of the colon. Different cultures are more likely to cause certain different illnesses because of the food that is characteristic in these cultures. That food is related to illness is nto a new discovery. In 1945, about 35 years ago, government researchers realized that nitrates, commonly used to preserve color in meats,and other food additivies,caused cancer. Yet, these carcinogenic additives remain in our food, and it becomes more difficult all the time to know which things on the packaging labels of processed food are helpful or harmful. The additives which we eat are not all so direct. Farmers often give penicillin to beef and living animals, and because of this ,penicillin has been found in the milk of treated cow. Sometimes similar drugs are given to animals not for medical purposes,but for financial reasons. The farmers are simply trying to fatten the animals in order to obtain a higher price on the market. Although the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) has tried repeatedly to control these procedures, the practices continue. | 3232.txt | 3 |
[
"They will be moved.",
"They will be annoyed.",
"They will be delighted.",
"They will be discouraged."
] | How will most people feel when you try hard to remember their names? | Remembering names is an important social skill. Here are some ways to master it.
Recite and repeat in conversation.
When you hear a person's name，repeat it. Immediately say it to yourself several times without moving your lips. You could also repeat the name in a way that does not sound forced or artificial.
Ask the other person to recite and repeat.
You can let other people help you remember their names. After you've been introduced to someone，ask that person to spell the name mad pronounce it correctly for you. Most people will be pleased by the effort you're making to learn their names.
Admit you don't know.
Admitting that you can't remember someone's name can actually make people relaxed. Most of them will feel sympathy if you say. "I'm working to remember names better. Yours is right on the tip of my tongue. What is it again?"
Use associations.
Link each person yon meet with one thing you find interesting or unusual. For example，you could make a mental note: "Vicki Cheng -- tall, black hair. " To reinforce you're your associations, write them on a small card as soon as possible.
Limit the number of new names you learn at one time.
When meeting a group of people, concentrate on remembering just two or three names. Free yourself from remembering every one. Few of the people in mass introductions expect you to remember their names. Another way is to limit yourself to learning just first names. Last names can come later.
Go early.
Consider going early to conferences, parties and classes. Sometimes just a few people show up on time. That's fewer names for you to remember. And as more people arrive, you can hear them being introduced to others-an automatic review for you. | 3543.txt | 2 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.