Question: Article: Rene Descartes' explanation of pain has long been acknowledged in medicine. He proposed that pain is a purely physical phenomenon - that tissue injury makes specific nerves send a signal to the brain, causing the mind to notice pain. The phenomenon, he said, is like pulling on a rope to ring a bell in the brain. It is hard to overstate how deeply fixed this account has become. In medicine, doctors see pain in Descartes' terms-- as a physical process, a sign of tissue injury. The limitations of this explanation, however, have been apparent for some time, since people with obvious injuries sometimes report feeling no pain at all. Later, researchers proposed that Descartes' model be replaced with what they called the gate control theory of pain. They argued that before pain signals reach the brain, they must first go through a gating mechanism in the spinal cord . In some cases, this imaginary gate could simply stop pain signals from getting to the brain. Their most _ suggestion was that what controlled the gate was not just signals from sensory nerves but also emotions and other "output" from the brain. They were saying that pulling on the rope need not make the bell ring. The bell itself--the mind-- could stop it. This theory led to a great deal of research into how such factors as mood, gender, and beliefs influence the experience of pain. In a British study, for example, researchers measured pain threshold and tolerance levels in 53 ballet dancers and 53 university students by using a common measurement: after immersing your hand in body-temperature water for two minutes to establish a baseline condition, you put your hand in a bowl of ice water and start a clock running. You mark the time when it begins to hurt: that is your pain threshold. Then you mark the time when it hurts too much to keep your hand in the water: that is your pain tolerance. The test is always stopped at 120 seconds, to prevent injury. The results were striking. On average female students reported pain at 16 seconds and pulled their... Question: The primary purpose of the passage is to  _  . Yes or no, is the answer "describe how modern research has updated an old explanation"?
Answer: No

Question: Article: Your cell phone holds secrets about you. Besides the names and numbers that you've programmed into it, traces of your DNA remain on it, according to a new study. DNA is genetic material that appears in every cell. Like your fingerprint, your DNA is unique to you --- unless you have an identical twin. Scientists today usually analyze DNA in blood,saliva , or hair left behind at the scene of a crime. The results often help detectives identify criminals and their victims. Meghan J. McFadden, a biologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, heard about a crime in which the suspect bled onto a cell phone and later dropped the device. This made her wonder whether traces of DNA remained on cell phones --- even when no blood was involved. To find out, she and a colleague collectedflip-style  phones from 10 volunteers. They collected invisible traces of the users from two parts of the phone: the outside, where the user holds it, and the speaker, which is placed at the user's ear. The scientists scrubbed(meaning "cleaned") the phones using a liquid mixture made mostly of alcohol. The aim of washing was to remove all detectable traces of DNA. The owners got their phones back for another week. Then the researchers collected the phones and repeated collecting traces on each phone once more. They discovered DNA that belonged to the phone's owner on each of the phones. Surprisingly, DNA showed up even in swabs that were taken immediately after the phones were cleaned. That suggests that washing won't remove all traces of evidence from a criminal's cell phone. So cell phones can now be added to the list of clues that can help a crime-scene investigation. Question: Which of the following is NOT mentioned in the passage? Yes or no, is the answer "The technique of collecting DNA on the phones."?
Answer: No

Question: Article: Computers are very important to modern life.Many people think that in the future computers will be used in lots of everyday life.It is thought that we won't have to go shopping because we will be able to get most things which are sold in shops on the Internet.There will be no more books because we will be able to get all texts from computers.The Internet will be used to play games, see films and buy food.Most telephone calls will be made by computers, too. Some people are glad about those new ways of shopping and communicating .Others do not think that computers will replace our old ways. Some people think that one day we will not read books made of paper. Instead, we will buy and read books using computers, which will keep many different books in them at the same time.We won't need to turn lots of pages and paper will be saved.Computerized   books will be used more and more. While many people say it is a pleasure to go into shops and look at things you want to buy.It is also unlikely that many people will want to read large texts on our computers. Because paper books will perhaps be more friendly.Maybe computers won't change these two habits. Question: Which of the following is mentioned   in the passage? Yes or no, is the answer "Computers can help us make telephone calls."?
Answer: