Article: Many crimes and social problems are caused by children. Despite the damage these teenage criminals cause, parents are not responsible in most countries. This article will discuss whether parents should be forced to pay for their children's crimes. There are many reasons why parents should not be responsible for crimes committed by teenage children. First of all, teenagers today are independent. They often move out of the parents' house at 18 years of age or younger. They are expected to learn to take care of themselves and make their own decisions, and not to stay like small children attached to their parents. Secondly, parents are working. They cannot watch their adolescent children all the time. A third point is that even children from good families can sometimes commit crimes. Parents should not be responsible if they have worked hard to raise their children properly. However, young troublemakers cause many problems, and I feel we should make parents responsible. Firstly, most juvenile crimes are committed by adolescents whose parents do not care or make any effort to control their children. If parents had to pay fines , they might make more effort. Another point is that even though the children may seem mature, they are not really able to make good decisions. Parents should be responsible for raising and teaching their children until they are fully grown. Furthermore, if children know that their parents will have to pay, they will think carefully before getting into trouble. In summary, there are good reasons both for and against making parents pay for acts committed by their children. However, I feel strongly that if we want to reduce the number of such crimes, we need to make parents take more responsibility. Question: What can be the best title for the passage? Yes or no, is the answer "Should parents pay?"?
Yes
------
Article: Learning English has a powerful effect on the type of job you can get. If you don't speak English well, you won't find many jobs, and yes, you'll earn much less money. Only 2% of company managers can't speak English! Your family can also benefit from you learning English. And you can learn with them, helping each other as a family. Children have up to a 40% better chance of finishing high school if their parents speak English well. If you speak English better , you'll find more jobs--- good jobs. Or you can get a promotion and earn more money. Learn how the Beehive can help you find the right job. School. Children go to their parents when they need help with school. If you speak better English, you can help your child with homework and you can also talk to teachers and other parents. Health. Most doctors and pharmacists  in America only speak English, and if you can explain what the problem is and understand what the doctor is saying, you'll get better sooner! On the Beehive, you can find cheap, free medical help or find important information for your family.  Education. With a little more English, you might be able to take your high school diploma (GED), go to a vocational school to learn a profession or even go to college! Find out what type of education is right for you, and how to do it. It is never too late! Money. If you understand what people tell you at the bank, a store or a lawyer's office, nobody will be able to cheat you! With more English, you can save more, send more money to your family and even start your own business. Don't wait! Find an English course now! And remember, with the Beehive you can practice English and find a good job, open a bank account or find a doctor! The Beehive is written very clearly so you can make life better. Many people are doing it! Question: How can English benefit you in America? Yes or no, is the answer "You'll communicate with most doctors and pharmacists better."?
No
------
Article: Communications technologies are far from equal when it comes to conveying the truth.The first study to compare honesty across a range of communication media has found that people are twice as likely to tell lies in phone conversations as they are in emails.The fact that emails are automatically recorded--and can come back to puzzle you---appears to be the key to the finding. Jeff Hancock of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, asked 30 students to keep a communications diary for a week.In it they noted the number of conversations or email exchanges they had lasting more than 10 minutes, and confessed to how many lies they told.Hancock then worked out the number of lies per conversation for each medium.He found that lies made up 14 per cent of emails, 21 percent of instant messages, 27 per cent of face-to-face interactions and an astonishing 37 percent of phone calls. His results to be presented at the conference on human-computer interaction in Vienna, Austria, in April, have surprised psychologists.Some expected emailers to be the biggest liars, reasoning that because deception makes people uncomfortable, the indirect contact of emailing would make it easier to lie.Others expected people to lie more in face-to-face exchanges because we are most practiced at that form of communication. But Hancock says it is also crucial whether a conversation is being recorded and could be reread, and whether it occurs in real time.People appear to be afraid to lie when they know the communication could later be used to hold them to account, he says.This is why fewer lies appear in email than on the phone. People are also more likely to lie in real time---in an instant message or phone call, say---than if they have time to think of a response, says Hancock.He found many lies are spontaneous  responses to an unexpected demand, such as: "Do you like my dress?" Hancock hopes his research will help companies work out the best ways for their employees to communicate.For instance, the phone might be the best medium for sales... Question: Hancock's research finding surprised those who believed that   _  . Yes or no, is the answer "people are most likely to lie in email communication"?
Yes
------
Article: A new study links heavy air pollution from coal burning to shorter lives in northern China. Researchers estimate that the half-billion people alive there in the 1990s will live an average of 5 years less than their southern counterparts because they breathed dirtier air. China itself made the comparison possible: for decades, a now-discontinued government policy provided free coal for heating, but only in the colder north. Researchers found significant differences in both _ pollution of the air and life expectancy in the two regions. While previous studies have found that pollution affects human health, "the deeper and ultimately more important question is the impact on life expectancy," said one of the researchers, Michael Greenstone, a professor of environmental economics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "This study provides a unique setting to answer the life expectancy question because the(heating) policy dramatically changes pollution concentrations ,,,Greenstone said in an email. "Further, due to the low rates of migration in China in this period, we can know people's exposure over long time periods," he said. The policy gave free coal for fuel boilers to heat homes and offices to cities north of the Huai Rivwhich divides China into north and south. It was in effect for much of the 1950-198,0 period of central planning, and, though discontinued after 1980, it has left a legacy  in the north of heavy coal burning, which releases particulate pollutants into the air that can harm human health. Researchers found no other government policies that treated China's north differently from the south. The researchers collected data for 90 cities, from 1981 to 2000, on the annual daily average concentration of total suspended particulates. In China, those are considered to be particulates that are 100 micrometers or less in diameter, sent out from sources including power stations, construction sites and vehicles. Among them, PM2.5 is of especially great health concern because it can go deep into the... Question: According to Greenstone,  _  greatly contributed to the high pollution concentrations in North China. Yes or no, is the answer "the free heating policy"?
