uid
stringlengths 4
7
| premise
stringlengths 19
9.21k
| hypothesis
stringlengths 13
488
| label
stringclasses 3
values |
|---|---|---|---|
id_5800 | TRICKY SUMS AND PSYCHOLOGY In their first years of studying mathematics at school, children all over the world usually have to learn the times table, also known as the multiplication table, which shows what you get when you multiply numbers together. Children have traditionally learned their times table by going from 1 times 1 is 1 all the way up to 12 times 12 is 144. Times tables have been around for a very long time now. The oldest known tables using base 10 numbers, the base that is now used everywhere in the world, are written on bamboo strips dating from 305 BC, found in China. However, in many European cultures the times table is named after the Ancient Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras (570-495 BC). And so it is called the Table of Pythagoras in many languages, including French and Italian. In 1820, in his book The Philosophy of Arithmetic, the mathematician John Leslie recommended that young pupils memories the times table up to 25 x 25. Nowadays, however, educators generally believe it is important for children to memorise the table up to 9 x 9, 10 x 10 or 12 x12. The current aim in the UK is for school pupils to know all their times tables up to 12 x 12 by the age of nine. However, many people do not know them, even as adults. Recently, some politicians have been asked arithmetical questions of this kind. For example, in 1998, the schools minister Stephen Byers was asked the answer to 7 x 8. He got the answer wrong, saying 54 rather than 56, and everyone laughed at him. In 2014, a young boy asked the UK Chancellor George Osborne the exact same question. As he had passed A-level maths and was in charge of the UKs economic policies at the time, you would expect him to know the answer. However, he simply said, Ive made it a rule in life not to answer such questions. Why would a politician refuse to answer such a question? It is certainly true that some sums are much harder than others. Research has shown that learning and remembering sums involving 6,7,8 and 9 tends to be harder than remembering sums involving other numbers. And it is even harder when 6,7,8 and 9 are multiplied by each other. Studies often find that the hardest sum is 68, with 78 not far behind. However, even though 78 is a relatively difficult sum, it is unlikely that George Osborne did not know the answer. So there must be some other reason why he refused to answer the question. The answer is that Osborne was being put on the spot and he didnt like it. It is well known that when there is a lot of pressure to do something right, people often have difficulty doing something that they normally find easy. When you put someone on the spot and ask such a question, it causes stress. The persons heart beats faster and their adrenalin levels go up. As a result, people will often make mistakes that they would not normally make. This is called choking. Choking often happens in sport, such as when a footballer takes a crucial penalty. In the same way, the boys question put Osborne under great pressure. He knew it would be a disaster for him if he got the answer to such a simple question wrong and feared that he might choke. And that is why he refused to answer the question. TRICKY SUMS AND PSYCHOLOGY In their first years of studying mathematics at school, children all over the world usually have to learn the times table, also known as the multiplication table, which shows what you get when you multiply numbers together. Children have traditionally learned their times table by going from 1 times 1 is 1 all the way up to 12 times 12 is 144. Times tables have been around for a very long time now. The oldest known tables using base 10 numbers, the base that is now used everywhere in the world, are written on bamboo strips dating from 305 BC, found in China. However, in many European cultures the times table is named after the Ancient Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras (570-495 BC). And so it is called the Table of Pythagoras in many languages, including French and Italian. In 1820, in his book The Philosophy of Arithmetic, the mathematician John Leslie recommended that young pupils memories the times table up to 25 x 25. Nowadays, however, educators generally believe it is important for children to memorise the table up to 9 x 9, 10 x 10 or 12 x12. The current aim in the UK is for school pupils to know all their times tables up to 12 x 12 by the age of nine. However, many people do not know them, even as adults. Recently, some politicians have been asked arithmetical questions of this kind. For example, in 1998, the schools minister Stephen Byers was asked the answer to 7 x 8. He got the answer wrong, saying 54 rather than 56, and everyone laughed at him. In 2014, a young boy asked the UK Chancellor George Osborne the exact same question. As he had passed A-level maths and was in charge of the UKs economic policies at the time, you would expect him to know the answer. However, he simply said, Ive made it a rule in life not to answer such questions. Why would a politician refuse to answer such a question? It is certainly true that some sums are much harder than others. Research has shown that learning and remembering sums involving 6,7,8 and 9 tends to be harder than remembering sums involving other numbers. And it is even harder when 6,7,8 and 9 are multiplied by each other. Studies often find that the hardest sum is 68, with 78 not far behind. However, even though 78 is a relatively difficult sum, it is unlikely that George Osborne did not know the answer. So there must be some other reason why he refused to answer the question. The answer is that Osborne was being put on the spot and he didnt like it. It is well known that when there is a lot of pressure to do something right, people often have difficulty doing something that they normally find easy. When you put someone on the spot and ask such a question, it causes stress. The persons heart beats faster and their adrenalin levels go up. As a result, people will often make mistakes that they would not normally make. This is called choking. Choking often happens in sport, such as when a footballer takes a crucial penalty. In the same way, the boys question put Osborne under great pressure. He knew it would be a disaster for him if he got the answer to such a simple question wrong and feared that he might choke. And that is why he refused to answer the question. | Pythagoras invented the times table in China. | contradiction |
id_5801 | TRICKY SUMS AND PSYCHOLOGY In their first years of studying mathematics at school, children all over the world usually have to learn the times table, also known as the multiplication table, which shows what you get when you multiply numbers together. Children have traditionally learned their times table by going from 1 times 1 is 1 all the way up to 12 times 12 is 144. Times tables have been around for a very long time now. The oldest known tables using base 10 numbers, the base that is now used everywhere in the world, are written on bamboo strips dating from 305 BC, found in China. However, in many European cultures the times table is named after the Ancient Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras (570-495 BC). And so it is called the Table of Pythagoras in many languages, including French and Italian. In 1820, in his book The Philosophy of Arithmetic, the mathematician John Leslie recommended that young pupils memories the times table up to 25 x 25. Nowadays, however, educators generally believe it is important for children to memorise the table up to 9 x 9, 10 x 10 or 12 x12. The current aim in the UK is for school pupils to know all their times tables up to 12 x 12 by the age of nine. However, many people do not know them, even as adults. Recently, some politicians have been asked arithmetical questions of this kind. For example, in 1998, the schools minister Stephen Byers was asked the answer to 7 x 8. He got the answer wrong, saying 54 rather than 56, and everyone laughed at him. In 2014, a young boy asked the UK Chancellor George Osborne the exact same question. As he had passed A-level maths and was in charge of the UKs economic policies at the time, you would expect him to know the answer. However, he simply said, Ive made it a rule in life not to answer such questions. Why would a politician refuse to answer such a question? It is certainly true that some sums are much harder than others. Research has shown that learning and remembering sums involving 6,7,8 and 9 tends to be harder than remembering sums involving other numbers. And it is even harder when 6,7,8 and 9 are multiplied by each other. Studies often find that the hardest sum is 68, with 78 not far behind. However, even though 78 is a relatively difficult sum, it is unlikely that George Osborne did not know the answer. So there must be some other reason why he refused to answer the question. The answer is that Osborne was being put on the spot and he didnt like it. It is well known that when there is a lot of pressure to do something right, people often have difficulty doing something that they normally find easy. When you put someone on the spot and ask such a question, it causes stress. The persons heart beats faster and their adrenalin levels go up. As a result, people will often make mistakes that they would not normally make. This is called choking. Choking often happens in sport, such as when a footballer takes a crucial penalty. In the same way, the boys question put Osborne under great pressure. He knew it would be a disaster for him if he got the answer to such a simple question wrong and feared that he might choke. And that is why he refused to answer the question. TRICKY SUMS AND PSYCHOLOGY In their first years of studying mathematics at school, children all over the world usually have to learn the times table, also known as the multiplication table, which shows what you get when you multiply numbers together. Children have traditionally learned their times table by going from 1 times 1 is 1 all the way up to 12 times 12 is 144. Times tables have been around for a very long time now. The oldest known tables using base 10 numbers, the base that is now used everywhere in the world, are written on bamboo strips dating from 305 BC, found in China. However, in many European cultures the times table is named after the Ancient Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras (570-495 BC). And so it is called the Table of Pythagoras in many languages, including French and Italian. In 1820, in his book The Philosophy of Arithmetic, the mathematician John Leslie recommended that young pupils memories the times table up to 25 x 25. Nowadays, however, educators generally believe it is important for children to memorise the table up to 9 x 9, 10 x 10 or 12 x12. The current aim in the UK is for school pupils to know all their times tables up to 12 x 12 by the age of nine. However, many people do not know them, even as adults. Recently, some politicians have been asked arithmetical questions of this kind. For example, in 1998, the schools minister Stephen Byers was asked the answer to 7 x 8. He got the answer wrong, saying 54 rather than 56, and everyone laughed at him. In 2014, a young boy asked the UK Chancellor George Osborne the exact same question. As he had passed A-level maths and was in charge of the UKs economic policies at the time, you would expect him to know the answer. However, he simply said, Ive made it a rule in life not to answer such questions. Why would a politician refuse to answer such a question? It is certainly true that some sums are much harder than others. Research has shown that learning and remembering sums involving 6,7,8 and 9 tends to be harder than remembering sums involving other numbers. And it is even harder when 6,7,8 and 9 are multiplied by each other. Studies often find that the hardest sum is 68, with 78 not far behind. However, even though 78 is a relatively difficult sum, it is unlikely that George Osborne did not know the answer. So there must be some other reason why he refused to answer the question. The answer is that Osborne was being put on the spot and he didnt like it. It is well known that when there is a lot of pressure to do something right, people often have difficulty doing something that they normally find easy. When you put someone on the spot and ask such a question, it causes stress. The persons heart beats faster and their adrenalin levels go up. As a result, people will often make mistakes that they would not normally make. This is called choking. Choking often happens in sport, such as when a footballer takes a crucial penalty. In the same way, the boys question put Osborne under great pressure. He knew it would be a disaster for him if he got the answer to such a simple question wrong and feared that he might choke. And that is why he refused to answer the question. | Stephen Byers got the sum wrong because he choked. | neutral |
id_5802 | TRICKY SUMS AND PSYCHOLOGY In their first years of studying mathematics at school, children all over the world usually have to learn the times table, also known as the multiplication table, which shows what you get when you multiply numbers together. Children have traditionally learned their times table by going from 1 times 1 is 1 all the way up to 12 times 12 is 144. Times tables have been around for a very long time now. The oldest known tables using base 10 numbers, the base that is now used everywhere in the world, are written on bamboo strips dating from 305 BC, found in China. However, in many European cultures the times table is named after the Ancient Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras (570-495 BC). And so it is called the Table of Pythagoras in many languages, including French and Italian. In 1820, in his book The Philosophy of Arithmetic, the mathematician John Leslie recommended that young pupils memories the times table up to 25 x 25. Nowadays, however, educators generally believe it is important for children to memorise the table up to 9 x 9, 10 x 10 or 12 x12. The current aim in the UK is for school pupils to know all their times tables up to 12 x 12 by the age of nine. However, many people do not know them, even as adults. Recently, some politicians have been asked arithmetical questions of this kind. For example, in 1998, the schools minister Stephen Byers was asked the answer to 7 x 8. He got the answer wrong, saying 54 rather than 56, and everyone laughed at him. In 2014, a young boy asked the UK Chancellor George Osborne the exact same question. As he had passed A-level maths and was in charge of the UKs economic policies at the time, you would expect him to know the answer. However, he simply said, Ive made it a rule in life not to answer such questions. Why would a politician refuse to answer such a question? It is certainly true that some sums are much harder than others. Research has shown that learning and remembering sums involving 6,7,8 and 9 tends to be harder than remembering sums involving other numbers. And it is even harder when 6,7,8 and 9 are multiplied by each other. Studies often find that the hardest sum is 68, with 78 not far behind. However, even though 78 is a relatively difficult sum, it is unlikely that George Osborne did not know the answer. So there must be some other reason why he refused to answer the question. The answer is that Osborne was being put on the spot and he didnt like it. It is well known that when there is a lot of pressure to do something right, people often have difficulty doing something that they normally find easy. When you put someone on the spot and ask such a question, it causes stress. The persons heart beats faster and their adrenalin levels go up. As a result, people will often make mistakes that they would not normally make. This is called choking. Choking often happens in sport, such as when a footballer takes a crucial penalty. In the same way, the boys question put Osborne under great pressure. He knew it would be a disaster for him if he got the answer to such a simple question wrong and feared that he might choke. And that is why he refused to answer the question. TRICKY SUMS AND PSYCHOLOGY In their first years of studying mathematics at school, children all over the world usually have to learn the times table, also known as the multiplication table, which shows what you get when you multiply numbers together. Children have traditionally learned their times table by going from 1 times 1 is 1 all the way up to 12 times 12 is 144. Times tables have been around for a very long time now. The oldest known tables using base 10 numbers, the base that is now used everywhere in the world, are written on bamboo strips dating from 305 BC, found in China. However, in many European cultures the times table is named after the Ancient Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras (570-495 BC). And so it is called the Table of Pythagoras in many languages, including French and Italian. In 1820, in his book The Philosophy of Arithmetic, the mathematician John Leslie recommended that young pupils memories the times table up to 25 x 25. Nowadays, however, educators generally believe it is important for children to memorise the table up to 9 x 9, 10 x 10 or 12 x12. The current aim in the UK is for school pupils to know all their times tables up to 12 x 12 by the age of nine. However, many people do not know them, even as adults. Recently, some politicians have been asked arithmetical questions of this kind. For example, in 1998, the schools minister Stephen Byers was asked the answer to 7 x 8. He got the answer wrong, saying 54 rather than 56, and everyone laughed at him. In 2014, a young boy asked the UK Chancellor George Osborne the exact same question. As he had passed A-level maths and was in charge of the UKs economic policies at the time, you would expect him to know the answer. However, he simply said, Ive made it a rule in life not to answer such questions. Why would a politician refuse to answer such a question? It is certainly true that some sums are much harder than others. Research has shown that learning and remembering sums involving 6,7,8 and 9 tends to be harder than remembering sums involving other numbers. And it is even harder when 6,7,8 and 9 are multiplied by each other. Studies often find that the hardest sum is 68, with 78 not far behind. However, even though 78 is a relatively difficult sum, it is unlikely that George Osborne did not know the answer. So there must be some other reason why he refused to answer the question. The answer is that Osborne was being put on the spot and he didnt like it. It is well known that when there is a lot of pressure to do something right, people often have difficulty doing something that they normally find easy. When you put someone on the spot and ask such a question, it causes stress. The persons heart beats faster and their adrenalin levels go up. As a result, people will often make mistakes that they would not normally make. This is called choking. Choking often happens in sport, such as when a footballer takes a crucial penalty. In the same way, the boys question put Osborne under great pressure. He knew it would be a disaster for him if he got the answer to such a simple question wrong and feared that he might choke. And that is why he refused to answer the question. | 7 X 8 is the hardest sum that children have to learn. | contradiction |
id_5803 | TRICKY SUMS AND PSYCHOLOGY In their first years of studying mathematics at school, children all over the world usually have to learn the times table, also known as the multiplication table, which shows what you get when you multiply numbers together. Children have traditionally learned their times table by going from 1 times 1 is 1 all the way up to 12 times 12 is 144. Times tables have been around for a very long time now. The oldest known tables using base 10 numbers, the base that is now used everywhere in the world, are written on bamboo strips dating from 305 BC, found in China. However, in many European cultures the times table is named after the Ancient Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras (570-495 BC). And so it is called the Table of Pythagoras in many languages, including French and Italian. In 1820, in his book The Philosophy of Arithmetic, the mathematician John Leslie recommended that young pupils memories the times table up to 25 x 25. Nowadays, however, educators generally believe it is important for children to memorise the table up to 9 x 9, 10 x 10 or 12 x12. The current aim in the UK is for school pupils to know all their times tables up to 12 x 12 by the age of nine. However, many people do not know them, even as adults. Recently, some politicians have been asked arithmetical questions of this kind. For example, in 1998, the schools minister Stephen Byers was asked the answer to 7 x 8. He got the answer wrong, saying 54 rather than 56, and everyone laughed at him. In 2014, a young boy asked the UK Chancellor George Osborne the exact same question. As he had passed A-level maths and was in charge of the UKs economic policies at the time, you would expect him to know the answer. However, he simply said, Ive made it a rule in life not to answer such questions. Why would a politician refuse to answer such a question? It is certainly true that some sums are much harder than others. Research has shown that learning and remembering sums involving 6,7,8 and 9 tends to be harder than remembering sums involving other numbers. And it is even harder when 6,7,8 and 9 are multiplied by each other. Studies often find that the hardest sum is 68, with 78 not far behind. However, even though 78 is a relatively difficult sum, it is unlikely that George Osborne did not know the answer. So there must be some other reason why he refused to answer the question. The answer is that Osborne was being put on the spot and he didnt like it. It is well known that when there is a lot of pressure to do something right, people often have difficulty doing something that they normally find easy. When you put someone on the spot and ask such a question, it causes stress. The persons heart beats faster and their adrenalin levels go up. As a result, people will often make mistakes that they would not normally make. This is called choking. Choking often happens in sport, such as when a footballer takes a crucial penalty. In the same way, the boys question put Osborne under great pressure. He knew it would be a disaster for him if he got the answer to such a simple question wrong and feared that he might choke. And that is why he refused to answer the question. TRICKY SUMS AND PSYCHOLOGY In their first years of studying mathematics at school, children all over the world usually have to learn the times table, also known as the multiplication table, which shows what you get when you multiply numbers together. Children have traditionally learned their times table by going from 1 times 1 is 1 all the way up to 12 times 12 is 144. Times tables have been around for a very long time now. The oldest known tables using base 10 numbers, the base that is now used everywhere in the world, are written on bamboo strips dating from 305 BC, found in China. However, in many European cultures the times table is named after the Ancient Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras (570-495 BC). And so it is called the Table of Pythagoras in many languages, including French and Italian. In 1820, in his book The Philosophy of Arithmetic, the mathematician John Leslie recommended that young pupils memories the times table up to 25 x 25. Nowadays, however, educators generally believe it is important for children to memorise the table up to 9 x 9, 10 x 10 or 12 x12. The current aim in the UK is for school pupils to know all their times tables up to 12 x 12 by the age of nine. However, many people do not know them, even as adults. Recently, some politicians have been asked arithmetical questions of this kind. For example, in 1998, the schools minister Stephen Byers was asked the answer to 7 x 8. He got the answer wrong, saying 54 rather than 56, and everyone laughed at him. In 2014, a young boy asked the UK Chancellor George Osborne the exact same question. As he had passed A-level maths and was in charge of the UKs economic policies at the time, you would expect him to know the answer. However, he simply said, Ive made it a rule in life not to answer such questions. Why would a politician refuse to answer such a question? It is certainly true that some sums are much harder than others. Research has shown that learning and remembering sums involving 6,7,8 and 9 tends to be harder than remembering sums involving other numbers. And it is even harder when 6,7,8 and 9 are multiplied by each other. Studies often find that the hardest sum is 68, with 78 not far behind. However, even though 78 is a relatively difficult sum, it is unlikely that George Osborne did not know the answer. So there must be some other reason why he refused to answer the question. The answer is that Osborne was being put on the spot and he didnt like it. It is well known that when there is a lot of pressure to do something right, people often have difficulty doing something that they normally find easy. When you put someone on the spot and ask such a question, it causes stress. The persons heart beats faster and their adrenalin levels go up. As a result, people will often make mistakes that they would not normally make. This is called choking. Choking often happens in sport, such as when a footballer takes a crucial penalty. In the same way, the boys question put Osborne under great pressure. He knew it would be a disaster for him if he got the answer to such a simple question wrong and feared that he might choke. And that is why he refused to answer the question. | George Osborne did not know the answer to 7 X 8. | contradiction |
id_5804 | TRICKY SUMS AND PSYCHOLOGY In their first years of studying mathematics at school, children all over the world usually have to learn the times table, also known as the multiplication table, which shows what you get when you multiply numbers together. Children have traditionally learned their times table by going from 1 times 1 is 1 all the way up to 12 times 12 is 144. Times tables have been around for a very long time now. The oldest known tables using base 10 numbers, the base that is now used everywhere in the world, are written on bamboo strips dating from 305 BC, found in China. However, in many European cultures the times table is named after the Ancient Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras (570-495 BC). And so it is called the Table of Pythagoras in many languages, including French and Italian. In 1820, in his book The Philosophy of Arithmetic, the mathematician John Leslie recommended that young pupils memories the times table up to 25 x 25. Nowadays, however, educators generally believe it is important for children to memorise the table up to 9 x 9, 10 x 10 or 12 x12. The current aim in the UK is for school pupils to know all their times tables up to 12 x 12 by the age of nine. However, many people do not know them, even as adults. Recently, some politicians have been asked arithmetical questions of this kind. For example, in 1998, the schools minister Stephen Byers was asked the answer to 7 x 8. He got the answer wrong, saying 54 rather than 56, and everyone laughed at him. In 2014, a young boy asked the UK Chancellor George Osborne the exact same question. As he had passed A-level maths and was in charge of the UKs economic policies at the time, you would expect him to know the answer. However, he simply said, Ive made it a rule in life not to answer such questions. Why would a politician refuse to answer such a question? It is certainly true that some sums are much harder than others. Research has shown that learning and remembering sums involving 6,7,8 and 9 tends to be harder than remembering sums involving other numbers. And it is even harder when 6,7,8 and 9 are multiplied by each other. Studies often find that the hardest sum is 68, with 78 not far behind. However, even though 78 is a relatively difficult sum, it is unlikely that George Osborne did not know the answer. So there must be some other reason why he refused to answer the question. The answer is that Osborne was being put on the spot and he didnt like it. It is well known that when there is a lot of pressure to do something right, people often have difficulty doing something that they normally find easy. When you put someone on the spot and ask such a question, it causes stress. The persons heart beats faster and their adrenalin levels go up. As a result, people will often make mistakes that they would not normally make. This is called choking. Choking often happens in sport, such as when a footballer takes a crucial penalty. In the same way, the boys question put Osborne under great pressure. He knew it would be a disaster for him if he got the answer to such a simple question wrong and feared that he might choke. And that is why he refused to answer the question. TRICKY SUMS AND PSYCHOLOGY In their first years of studying mathematics at school, children all over the world usually have to learn the times table, also known as the multiplication table, which shows what you get when you multiply numbers together. Children have traditionally learned their times table by going from 1 times 1 is 1 all the way up to 12 times 12 is 144. Times tables have been around for a very long time now. The oldest known tables using base 10 numbers, the base that is now used everywhere in the world, are written on bamboo strips dating from 305 BC, found in China. However, in many European cultures the times table is named after the Ancient Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras (570-495 BC). And so it is called the Table of Pythagoras in many languages, including French and Italian. In 1820, in his book The Philosophy of Arithmetic, the mathematician John Leslie recommended that young pupils memories the times table up to 25 x 25. Nowadays, however, educators generally believe it is important for children to memorise the table up to 9 x 9, 10 x 10 or 12 x12. The current aim in the UK is for school pupils to know all their times tables up to 12 x 12 by the age of nine. However, many people do not know them, even as adults. Recently, some politicians have been asked arithmetical questions of this kind. For example, in 1998, the schools minister Stephen Byers was asked the answer to 7 x 8. He got the answer wrong, saying 54 rather than 56, and everyone laughed at him. In 2014, a young boy asked the UK Chancellor George Osborne the exact same question. As he had passed A-level maths and was in charge of the UKs economic policies at the time, you would expect him to know the answer. However, he simply said, Ive made it a rule in life not to answer such questions. Why would a politician refuse to answer such a question? It is certainly true that some sums are much harder than others. Research has shown that learning and remembering sums involving 6,7,8 and 9 tends to be harder than remembering sums involving other numbers. And it is even harder when 6,7,8 and 9 are multiplied by each other. Studies often find that the hardest sum is 68, with 78 not far behind. However, even though 78 is a relatively difficult sum, it is unlikely that George Osborne did not know the answer. So there must be some other reason why he refused to answer the question. The answer is that Osborne was being put on the spot and he didnt like it. It is well known that when there is a lot of pressure to do something right, people often have difficulty doing something that they normally find easy. When you put someone on the spot and ask such a question, it causes stress. The persons heart beats faster and their adrenalin levels go up. As a result, people will often make mistakes that they would not normally make. This is called choking. Choking often happens in sport, such as when a footballer takes a crucial penalty. In the same way, the boys question put Osborne under great pressure. He knew it would be a disaster for him if he got the answer to such a simple question wrong and feared that he might choke. And that is why he refused to answer the question. | All children in the UK have to learn the multiplication table. | entailment |
id_5805 | TROLLEY PSYCHOLOGY Have you ever noticed that when you walk into a shop, you tend to look over or veer to the right? Consumer psychologists say this is a classic biological trait, linked to most peoples preference for using their right hand. While its something we tend to do in shops as well as places such as museums and art galleries, supermarkets really capitalise on this. Its to the right where youll see temporary displays of products designed to grab your attention and entice you to make a snap purchase. This can be anything from fresh flowers and chocolates to umbrellas if its been raining. Consumer psychologist and Senior Lecturer at Deakin University Dr Paul Harrison says the location of a stores entry point has a significant effect on how people shop, and even how much they spend. Right-hand side entries favour anti-clockwise movement through the shop, while left-hand side entries favour clockwise patterns. Research in the US has shown that shoppers who travel in an anti-clockwise direction will spend, on average, two dollars more per trip than clockwise shoppers. Contrary to popular belief, once were in the store most of us dont weave up and down the aisles in an orderly way. Research conducted on shopper movement patterns in-store suggests people travel to some aisles only, and rarely in a systematic up-and-down pattern. Even longer, planned shopping trips follow this pattern. The most common path to travel in-store is around the outside perimeter, dipping in and out of the aisles as needed. As a result, the ends of each aisle are the most profitable part of the store. Product manufacturers pay big dollars to place their products there to grab shoppers attention, and its usually familiar brands that provide the greatest profit margin. Many supermarkets micro-manage the various fresh food sections of the shop. Instead of approaching the shop as a single entity, they separate areas into particular zones and have developed different marketing plans for each of these areas. These anchor departments usually include fresh fruit and vegetables, meat, dairy, and the bakery-and all are designed to give shoppers a sense of individual difference. Research indicates consumers will spend more time in the supermarket because of these different zones. Ever walked into a big supermarket just to buy some bread and milk and found yourself leaving with a basket of additional items? A classic retailing trick is to locate the milk and bread at the very back of the store ( often at either end) to encourage short-term shoppers to walk right through the shop and be tempted by the other, more expensive products along the way. According to Harrison, no matter what we might like to think, its human nature to be attracted to a bargain. Although we think we know were being manipulated, we tend to fall for it anyway. Even the word special plays on our subconscious. Just the word sets off a psychological process in your mind where if something is labelled special we think it must be good. It also feeds into a theory known as the scarcity effect. This is where we think that if its on special, then it must only be available at this shop or for a short time, and we afford it more value than the products around it. Confusion and emotional involvement will have an effect on how long a person spends in front of a particular area in the supermarket. You might, for example, find consumers spending a long time in front of the coffee selection area. Similarly, baby food and pet food purchases take longer because of emotional involvement. Soups and dressings often involve long buy times because of the sometimes-confusing variety of options on offer. As a result, long buy-time products are placed where shoppers will not feel hurried, crowded or that theyre getting in the way of other customers while they work out what theyre going to buy. These product areas will often be clearly marked out in a separate area. Take a list. People who shop with a list tend to spend less. Shop alone. People who shop as a couple tend to put more in their trolley, as each person will have their own ideas about whats important and should be purchased. Avoid big supermarkets. Dont shop at a big supermarket if you just want to drop in and pick up a few things-youre much better off in a small store. It takes more effort to get in and out of a big supermarket, and as a result you may feel the need to stock up once youre in there. Eat before you shop. Dont shop when youre hungry-its a sure-fire way to end up with a trolley full of unnecessary purchases. | People spend millions of dollars in supermarkets. | neutral |
id_5806 | TROLLEY PSYCHOLOGY Have you ever noticed that when you walk into a shop, you tend to look over or veer to the right? Consumer psychologists say this is a classic biological trait, linked to most peoples preference for using their right hand. While its something we tend to do in shops as well as places such as museums and art galleries, supermarkets really capitalise on this. Its to the right where youll see temporary displays of products designed to grab your attention and entice you to make a snap purchase. This can be anything from fresh flowers and chocolates to umbrellas if its been raining. Consumer psychologist and Senior Lecturer at Deakin University Dr Paul Harrison says the location of a stores entry point has a significant effect on how people shop, and even how much they spend. Right-hand side entries favour anti-clockwise movement through the shop, while left-hand side entries favour clockwise patterns. Research in the US has shown that shoppers who travel in an anti-clockwise direction will spend, on average, two dollars more per trip than clockwise shoppers. Contrary to popular belief, once were in the store most of us dont weave up and down the aisles in an orderly way. Research conducted on shopper movement patterns in-store suggests people travel to some aisles only, and rarely in a systematic up-and-down pattern. Even longer, planned shopping trips follow this pattern. The most common path to travel in-store is around the outside perimeter, dipping in and out of the aisles as needed. As a result, the ends of each aisle are the most profitable part of the store. Product manufacturers pay big dollars to place their products there to grab shoppers attention, and its usually familiar brands that provide the greatest profit margin. Many supermarkets micro-manage the various fresh food sections of the shop. Instead of approaching the shop as a single entity, they separate areas into particular zones and have developed different marketing plans for each of these areas. These anchor departments usually include fresh fruit and vegetables, meat, dairy, and the bakery-and all are designed to give shoppers a sense of individual difference. Research indicates consumers will spend more time in the supermarket because of these different zones. Ever walked into a big supermarket just to buy some bread and milk and found yourself leaving with a basket of additional items? A classic retailing trick is to locate the milk and bread at the very back of the store ( often at either end) to encourage short-term shoppers to walk right through the shop and be tempted by the other, more expensive products along the way. According to Harrison, no matter what we might like to think, its human nature to be attracted to a bargain. Although we think we know were being manipulated, we tend to fall for it anyway. Even the word special plays on our subconscious. Just the word sets off a psychological process in your mind where if something is labelled special we think it must be good. It also feeds into a theory known as the scarcity effect. This is where we think that if its on special, then it must only be available at this shop or for a short time, and we afford it more value than the products around it. Confusion and emotional involvement will have an effect on how long a person spends in front of a particular area in the supermarket. You might, for example, find consumers spending a long time in front of the coffee selection area. Similarly, baby food and pet food purchases take longer because of emotional involvement. Soups and dressings often involve long buy times because of the sometimes-confusing variety of options on offer. As a result, long buy-time products are placed where shoppers will not feel hurried, crowded or that theyre getting in the way of other customers while they work out what theyre going to buy. These product areas will often be clearly marked out in a separate area. Take a list. People who shop with a list tend to spend less. Shop alone. People who shop as a couple tend to put more in their trolley, as each person will have their own ideas about whats important and should be purchased. Avoid big supermarkets. Dont shop at a big supermarket if you just want to drop in and pick up a few things-youre much better off in a small store. It takes more effort to get in and out of a big supermarket, and as a result you may feel the need to stock up once youre in there. Eat before you shop. Dont shop when youre hungry-its a sure-fire way to end up with a trolley full of unnecessary purchases. | People tend to spend more than they intended in supermarkets. | neutral |
id_5807 | TROLLEY PSYCHOLOGY Have you ever noticed that when you walk into a shop, you tend to look over or veer to the right? Consumer psychologists say this is a classic biological trait, linked to most peoples preference for using their right hand. While its something we tend to do in shops as well as places such as museums and art galleries, supermarkets really capitalise on this. Its to the right where youll see temporary displays of products designed to grab your attention and entice you to make a snap purchase. This can be anything from fresh flowers and chocolates to umbrellas if its been raining. Consumer psychologist and Senior Lecturer at Deakin University Dr Paul Harrison says the location of a stores entry point has a significant effect on how people shop, and even how much they spend. Right-hand side entries favour anti-clockwise movement through the shop, while left-hand side entries favour clockwise patterns. Research in the US has shown that shoppers who travel in an anti-clockwise direction will spend, on average, two dollars more per trip than clockwise shoppers. Contrary to popular belief, once were in the store most of us dont weave up and down the aisles in an orderly way. Research conducted on shopper movement patterns in-store suggests people travel to some aisles only, and rarely in a systematic up-and-down pattern. Even longer, planned shopping trips follow this pattern. The most common path to travel in-store is around the outside perimeter, dipping in and out of the aisles as needed. As a result, the ends of each aisle are the most profitable part of the store. Product manufacturers pay big dollars to place their products there to grab shoppers attention, and its usually familiar brands that provide the greatest profit margin. Many supermarkets micro-manage the various fresh food sections of the shop. Instead of approaching the shop as a single entity, they separate areas into particular zones and have developed different marketing plans for each of these areas. These anchor departments usually include fresh fruit and vegetables, meat, dairy, and the bakery-and all are designed to give shoppers a sense of individual difference. Research indicates consumers will spend more time in the supermarket because of these different zones. Ever walked into a big supermarket just to buy some bread and milk and found yourself leaving with a basket of additional items? A classic retailing trick is to locate the milk and bread at the very back of the store ( often at either end) to encourage short-term shoppers to walk right through the shop and be tempted by the other, more expensive products along the way. According to Harrison, no matter what we might like to think, its human nature to be attracted to a bargain. Although we think we know were being manipulated, we tend to fall for it anyway. Even the word special plays on our subconscious. Just the word sets off a psychological process in your mind where if something is labelled special we think it must be good. It also feeds into a theory known as the scarcity effect. This is where we think that if its on special, then it must only be available at this shop or for a short time, and we afford it more value than the products around it. Confusion and emotional involvement will have an effect on how long a person spends in front of a particular area in the supermarket. You might, for example, find consumers spending a long time in front of the coffee selection area. Similarly, baby food and pet food purchases take longer because of emotional involvement. Soups and dressings often involve long buy times because of the sometimes-confusing variety of options on offer. As a result, long buy-time products are placed where shoppers will not feel hurried, crowded or that theyre getting in the way of other customers while they work out what theyre going to buy. These product areas will often be clearly marked out in a separate area. Take a list. People who shop with a list tend to spend less. Shop alone. People who shop as a couple tend to put more in their trolley, as each person will have their own ideas about whats important and should be purchased. Avoid big supermarkets. Dont shop at a big supermarket if you just want to drop in and pick up a few things-youre much better off in a small store. It takes more effort to get in and out of a big supermarket, and as a result you may feel the need to stock up once youre in there. Eat before you shop. Dont shop when youre hungry-its a sure-fire way to end up with a trolley full of unnecessary purchases. | You will usually save money by going on one big shopping trip, less frequently. | neutral |
id_5808 | TROLLEY PSYCHOLOGY Have you ever noticed that when you walk into a shop, you tend to look over or veer to the right? Consumer psychologists say this is a classic biological trait, linked to most peoples preference for using their right hand. While its something we tend to do in shops as well as places such as museums and art galleries, supermarkets really capitalise on this. Its to the right where youll see temporary displays of products designed to grab your attention and entice you to make a snap purchase. This can be anything from fresh flowers and chocolates to umbrellas if its been raining. Consumer psychologist and Senior Lecturer at Deakin University Dr Paul Harrison says the location of a stores entry point has a significant effect on how people shop, and even how much they spend. Right-hand side entries favour anti-clockwise movement through the shop, while left-hand side entries favour clockwise patterns. Research in the US has shown that shoppers who travel in an anti-clockwise direction will spend, on average, two dollars more per trip than clockwise shoppers. Contrary to popular belief, once were in the store most of us dont weave up and down the aisles in an orderly way. Research conducted on shopper movement patterns in-store suggests people travel to some aisles only, and rarely in a systematic up-and-down pattern. Even longer, planned shopping trips follow this pattern. The most common path to travel in-store is around the outside perimeter, dipping in and out of the aisles as needed. As a result, the ends of each aisle are the most profitable part of the store. Product manufacturers pay big dollars to place their products there to grab shoppers attention, and its usually familiar brands that provide the greatest profit margin. Many supermarkets micro-manage the various fresh food sections of the shop. Instead of approaching the shop as a single entity, they separate areas into particular zones and have developed different marketing plans for each of these areas. These anchor departments usually include fresh fruit and vegetables, meat, dairy, and the bakery-and all are designed to give shoppers a sense of individual difference. Research indicates consumers will spend more time in the supermarket because of these different zones. Ever walked into a big supermarket just to buy some bread and milk and found yourself leaving with a basket of additional items? A classic retailing trick is to locate the milk and bread at the very back of the store ( often at either end) to encourage short-term shoppers to walk right through the shop and be tempted by the other, more expensive products along the way. According to Harrison, no matter what we might like to think, its human nature to be attracted to a bargain. Although we think we know were being manipulated, we tend to fall for it anyway. Even the word special plays on our subconscious. Just the word sets off a psychological process in your mind where if something is labelled special we think it must be good. It also feeds into a theory known as the scarcity effect. This is where we think that if its on special, then it must only be available at this shop or for a short time, and we afford it more value than the products around it. Confusion and emotional involvement will have an effect on how long a person spends in front of a particular area in the supermarket. You might, for example, find consumers spending a long time in front of the coffee selection area. Similarly, baby food and pet food purchases take longer because of emotional involvement. Soups and dressings often involve long buy times because of the sometimes-confusing variety of options on offer. As a result, long buy-time products are placed where shoppers will not feel hurried, crowded or that theyre getting in the way of other customers while they work out what theyre going to buy. These product areas will often be clearly marked out in a separate area. Take a list. People who shop with a list tend to spend less. Shop alone. People who shop as a couple tend to put more in their trolley, as each person will have their own ideas about whats important and should be purchased. Avoid big supermarkets. Dont shop at a big supermarket if you just want to drop in and pick up a few things-youre much better off in a small store. It takes more effort to get in and out of a big supermarket, and as a result you may feel the need to stock up once youre in there. Eat before you shop. Dont shop when youre hungry-its a sure-fire way to end up with a trolley full of unnecessary purchases. | Bread and milk are usually found together. | contradiction |
id_5809 | TROLLEY PSYCHOLOGY Have you ever noticed that when you walk into a shop, you tend to look over or veer to the right? Consumer psychologists say this is a classic biological trait, linked to most peoples preference for using their right hand. While its something we tend to do in shops as well as places such as museums and art galleries, supermarkets really capitalise on this. Its to the right where youll see temporary displays of products designed to grab your attention and entice you to make a snap purchase. This can be anything from fresh flowers and chocolates to umbrellas if its been raining. Consumer psychologist and Senior Lecturer at Deakin University Dr Paul Harrison says the location of a stores entry point has a significant effect on how people shop, and even how much they spend. Right-hand side entries favour anti-clockwise movement through the shop, while left-hand side entries favour clockwise patterns. Research in the US has shown that shoppers who travel in an anti-clockwise direction will spend, on average, two dollars more per trip than clockwise shoppers. Contrary to popular belief, once were in the store most of us dont weave up and down the aisles in an orderly way. Research conducted on shopper movement patterns in-store suggests people travel to some aisles only, and rarely in a systematic up-and-down pattern. Even longer, planned shopping trips follow this pattern. The most common path to travel in-store is around the outside perimeter, dipping in and out of the aisles as needed. As a result, the ends of each aisle are the most profitable part of the store. Product manufacturers pay big dollars to place their products there to grab shoppers attention, and its usually familiar brands that provide the greatest profit margin. Many supermarkets micro-manage the various fresh food sections of the shop. Instead of approaching the shop as a single entity, they separate areas into particular zones and have developed different marketing plans for each of these areas. These anchor departments usually include fresh fruit and vegetables, meat, dairy, and the bakery-and all are designed to give shoppers a sense of individual difference. Research indicates consumers will spend more time in the supermarket because of these different zones. Ever walked into a big supermarket just to buy some bread and milk and found yourself leaving with a basket of additional items? A classic retailing trick is to locate the milk and bread at the very back of the store ( often at either end) to encourage short-term shoppers to walk right through the shop and be tempted by the other, more expensive products along the way. According to Harrison, no matter what we might like to think, its human nature to be attracted to a bargain. Although we think we know were being manipulated, we tend to fall for it anyway. Even the word special plays on our subconscious. Just the word sets off a psychological process in your mind where if something is labelled special we think it must be good. It also feeds into a theory known as the scarcity effect. This is where we think that if its on special, then it must only be available at this shop or for a short time, and we afford it more value than the products around it. Confusion and emotional involvement will have an effect on how long a person spends in front of a particular area in the supermarket. You might, for example, find consumers spending a long time in front of the coffee selection area. Similarly, baby food and pet food purchases take longer because of emotional involvement. Soups and dressings often involve long buy times because of the sometimes-confusing variety of options on offer. As a result, long buy-time products are placed where shoppers will not feel hurried, crowded or that theyre getting in the way of other customers while they work out what theyre going to buy. These product areas will often be clearly marked out in a separate area. Take a list. People who shop with a list tend to spend less. Shop alone. People who shop as a couple tend to put more in their trolley, as each person will have their own ideas about whats important and should be purchased. Avoid big supermarkets. Dont shop at a big supermarket if you just want to drop in and pick up a few things-youre much better off in a small store. It takes more effort to get in and out of a big supermarket, and as a result you may feel the need to stock up once youre in there. Eat before you shop. Dont shop when youre hungry-its a sure-fire way to end up with a trolley full of unnecessary purchases. | Left-handed people tend to walk over to the left in a shop. | neutral |
id_5810 | TROLLEY PSYCHOLOGY Have you ever noticed that when you walk into a shop, you tend to look over or veer to the right? Consumer psychologists say this is a classic biological trait, linked to most peoples preference for using their right hand. While its something we tend to do in shops as well as places such as museums and art galleries, supermarkets really capitalise on this. Its to the right where youll see temporary displays of products designed to grab your attention and entice you to make a snap purchase. This can be anything from fresh flowers and chocolates to umbrellas if its been raining. Consumer psychologist and Senior Lecturer at Deakin University Dr Paul Harrison says the location of a stores entry point has a significant effect on how people shop, and even how much they spend. Right-hand side entries favour anti-clockwise movement through the shop, while left-hand side entries favour clockwise patterns. Research in the US has shown that shoppers who travel in an anti-clockwise direction will spend, on average, two dollars more per trip than clockwise shoppers. Contrary to popular belief, once were in the store most of us dont weave up and down the aisles in an orderly way. Research conducted on shopper movement patterns in-store suggests people travel to some aisles only, and rarely in a systematic up-and-down pattern. Even longer, planned shopping trips follow this pattern. The most common path to travel in-store is around the outside perimeter, dipping in and out of the aisles as needed. As a result, the ends of each aisle are the most profitable part of the store. Product manufacturers pay big dollars to place their products there to grab shoppers attention, and its usually familiar brands that provide the greatest profit margin. Many supermarkets micro-manage the various fresh food sections of the shop. Instead of approaching the shop as a single entity, they separate areas into particular zones and have developed different marketing plans for each of these areas. These anchor departments usually include fresh fruit and vegetables, meat, dairy, and the bakery-and all are designed to give shoppers a sense of individual difference. Research indicates consumers will spend more time in the supermarket because of these different zones. Ever walked into a big supermarket just to buy some bread and milk and found yourself leaving with a basket of additional items? A classic retailing trick is to locate the milk and bread at the very back of the store ( often at either end) to encourage short-term shoppers to walk right through the shop and be tempted by the other, more expensive products along the way. According to Harrison, no matter what we might like to think, its human nature to be attracted to a bargain. Although we think we know were being manipulated, we tend to fall for it anyway. Even the word special plays on our subconscious. Just the word sets off a psychological process in your mind where if something is labelled special we think it must be good. It also feeds into a theory known as the scarcity effect. This is where we think that if its on special, then it must only be available at this shop or for a short time, and we afford it more value than the products around it. Confusion and emotional involvement will have an effect on how long a person spends in front of a particular area in the supermarket. You might, for example, find consumers spending a long time in front of the coffee selection area. Similarly, baby food and pet food purchases take longer because of emotional involvement. Soups and dressings often involve long buy times because of the sometimes-confusing variety of options on offer. As a result, long buy-time products are placed where shoppers will not feel hurried, crowded or that theyre getting in the way of other customers while they work out what theyre going to buy. These product areas will often be clearly marked out in a separate area. Take a list. People who shop with a list tend to spend less. Shop alone. People who shop as a couple tend to put more in their trolley, as each person will have their own ideas about whats important and should be purchased. Avoid big supermarkets. Dont shop at a big supermarket if you just want to drop in and pick up a few things-youre much better off in a small store. It takes more effort to get in and out of a big supermarket, and as a result you may feel the need to stock up once youre in there. Eat before you shop. Dont shop when youre hungry-its a sure-fire way to end up with a trolley full of unnecessary purchases. | Bread and milk are usually more expensive than other items in the store. | contradiction |
id_5811 | TROLLEY PSYCHOLOGY Have you ever noticed that when you walk into a shop, you tend to look over or veer to the right? Consumer psychologists say this is a classic biological trait, linked to most peoples preference for using their right hand. While its something we tend to do in shops as well as places such as museums and art galleries, supermarkets really capitalise on this. Its to the right where youll see temporary displays of products designed to grab your attention and entice you to make a snap purchase. This can be anything from fresh flowers and chocolates to umbrellas if its been raining. Consumer psychologist and Senior Lecturer at Deakin University Dr Paul Harrison says the location of a stores entry point has a significant effect on how people shop, and even how much they spend. Right-hand side entries favour anti-clockwise movement through the shop, while left-hand side entries favour clockwise patterns. Research in the US has shown that shoppers who travel in an anti-clockwise direction will spend, on average, two dollars more per trip than clockwise shoppers. Contrary to popular belief, once were in the store most of us dont weave up and down the aisles in an orderly way. Research conducted on shopper movement patterns in-store suggests people travel to some aisles only, and rarely in a systematic up-and-down pattern. Even longer, planned shopping trips follow this pattern. The most common path to travel in-store is around the outside perimeter, dipping in and out of the aisles as needed. As a result, the ends of each aisle are the most profitable part of the store. Product manufacturers pay big dollars to place their products there to grab shoppers attention, and its usually familiar brands that provide the greatest profit margin. Many supermarkets micro-manage the various fresh food sections of the shop. Instead of approaching the shop as a single entity, they separate areas into particular zones and have developed different marketing plans for each of these areas. These anchor departments usually include fresh fruit and vegetables, meat, dairy, and the bakery-and all are designed to give shoppers a sense of individual difference. Research indicates consumers will spend more time in the supermarket because of these different zones. Ever walked into a big supermarket just to buy some bread and milk and found yourself leaving with a basket of additional items? A classic retailing trick is to locate the milk and bread at the very back of the store ( often at either end) to encourage short-term shoppers to walk right through the shop and be tempted by the other, more expensive products along the way. According to Harrison, no matter what we might like to think, its human nature to be attracted to a bargain. Although we think we know were being manipulated, we tend to fall for it anyway. Even the word special plays on our subconscious. Just the word sets off a psychological process in your mind where if something is labelled special we think it must be good. It also feeds into a theory known as the scarcity effect. This is where we think that if its on special, then it must only be available at this shop or for a short time, and we afford it more value than the products around it. Confusion and emotional involvement will have an effect on how long a person spends in front of a particular area in the supermarket. You might, for example, find consumers spending a long time in front of the coffee selection area. Similarly, baby food and pet food purchases take longer because of emotional involvement. Soups and dressings often involve long buy times because of the sometimes-confusing variety of options on offer. As a result, long buy-time products are placed where shoppers will not feel hurried, crowded or that theyre getting in the way of other customers while they work out what theyre going to buy. These product areas will often be clearly marked out in a separate area. Take a list. People who shop with a list tend to spend less. Shop alone. People who shop as a couple tend to put more in their trolley, as each person will have their own ideas about whats important and should be purchased. Avoid big supermarkets. Dont shop at a big supermarket if you just want to drop in and pick up a few things-youre much better off in a small store. It takes more effort to get in and out of a big supermarket, and as a result you may feel the need to stock up once youre in there. Eat before you shop. Dont shop when youre hungry-its a sure-fire way to end up with a trolley full of unnecessary purchases. | Most shoppers cant resist a bargain. | entailment |
id_5812 | TV Addiction 2 Excessive cravings do not necessarily involve physical substances. Gambling can become compulsive; sex can become obsessive. One activity, however, stands out for its prominence and ubiquitythe worlds most popular pastime, television. Most people admit to having a love-bate relationship with it. They complain about the boob tube and couch potatoes, then they settle into their sofas and grab the remote control. Parents commonly fret about their childrens viewing (if not their own). Even researchers who study TV for a living marvel at the mediums hold on them personally. Percy Tannenbaum of the University of California at Berkeley has written: Among lifes more embarrassing moments have been countless occasions when I am engaged in conversation in a room while a TV set is on, and I cannot for the life of me stop from periodically glancing over to the screen. This occurs not only during dull conversations but during reasonably interesting ones just as well. B. Scientists have been studying the effects of television for decades, generally focusing on whether watching violence on TV correlates with being violent in real life. Less attention has been paid to the basic allure of the small screenthe medium, as opposed to the message. The term TV addiction is imprecise and laden with value judgments, but it captures the essence of a very real phenomenon. Psychologists and psychiatrists formally define substance dependence as a disorder characterized by criteria that include spending a great deal of time using the substance; using it more often than one intends; thinking about reducing use or making repeated unsuccessful efforts to reduce use; giving up important social, family or occupational activities to use it; and reporting withdrawal symptoms when one stops using it. All these criteria can apply to people who watch a lot of television. That does not mean that watching television, in itself, is problematic. Television can teach and amuse; it can reach aesthetic heights; it can provide much needed distraction and escape. The difficulty arises when people strongly sense that they ought not to watch as much as they do and yet find themselves strangely unable to reduce their viewing. Some knowledge of how the medium exerts its pull may help heavy viewers gain better control over their lives. The amount of time people spend watching television is astonishing. On average, individuals in the industrialized world devote three hours a day to the pursuitfully half of their leisure time, and more than on any single activity save work and sleep. At this rate, someone who lives to 75 would spend nine years in front of the tube. To some commentators, this devotion means simply that people enjoy TV and make a conscious decision to watch it. But if that is the whole story, why do so many people experience misgivings about how much they view? In Gallup polls in 1992 and 1999, two out of five adult respondents and seven out of 10 teenagers said they spent too much time watching TV. Other surveys have consistently shown that roughly 10 percent of adults call themselves TV addicts. What is it about TV that has such a hold on US? In part, the attraction seems to spring from our biological orienting response. First described by IvanPavlov in 1927, the orienting response is our instinctive visual or auditory reaction to any sudden or novel stimulus. It is part of our evolutionary heritage, a built-in sensitivity to movement and potential predatory threats. In 1986 Byron Reeves of Stanford University, Esther Thorson of the University of Missouri and their colleagues began to study whether the simple formal features of television-cuts, edits, zooms, pans, sudden noisesactivate the orienting response, thereby keeping attention on the screen. By watching how brain waves were affected by formal features, the researchers concluded that these stylistic tricks can indeed trigger involuntary responses and derive their attention-al value through the evolutionary significance of detecting movement.... It is the form, not the content, of television that is unique. The orienting response may partly explain common viewer remarks such as: If a television is on, I just cant keep my eyes off it, I dont want to watch as much as I do, but I cant help it, and I feel hypnotized when I watch television. In the years since Reeves and Thorson published then pioneering work, researchers have delved deeper. Annie Langs research team at Indiana University has shown that heart rate decreases for four to six seconds after an orienting stimulus. In ads, action sequences and music videos, formal features frequently come at a rate of one per second, thus activating the orienting response continuously. Lang and her colleagues have also investigated whether formal features affect peoples memory of what they have seen. In one of their studies, participants watched a program and then filled out a score sheet. Increasing the frequency of edits (defined here as a change from one camera angle to another in the same visual scene) improved memory recognition, presumably because it focused attention on the screen. Increasing the frequency of cutschanges to a new visual scene-had a similar effect but only up to a point. If the number of cuts exceeded 10 in two minutes, recognition dropped off sharply. Producers of educational television for children have found that formal features can help learning. But increasing the rate of cuts and edits eventually overloads the brain. Music videos and commercials that use rapid intercutting of unrelated scenes are designed to hold attention more than they are to convey information. People may remember the name of the product or band, but the details of the ad itself float in one ear and out the other. The orienting response is overworked. Viewers still attend to the screen, but they feel tired and worn out, with little compensating psychological reward. Our ESM findings show much the same thing. K. Sometimes the memory of the product is very subtle. Many ads today are deliberately oblique: they have an engaging story line, but it is hard to tell what they are trying to sell. Afterward you may not remember the product consciously. Yet advertisers believe that if they have gotten your attention, when you later go to the store you will feel better or more comfortable with a given product because you have a vague recollection of having heard of it. You should spend about 20 minutes on question 27-40, which are based on reading passage 3 on the following pages. | Even researcher find sometimes it is more interesting in watching TV than talking with others in personal experience | entailment |
id_5813 | TV Addiction 2 Excessive cravings do not necessarily involve physical substances. Gambling can become compulsive; sex can become obsessive. One activity, however, stands out for its prominence and ubiquitythe worlds most popular pastime, television. Most people admit to having a love-bate relationship with it. They complain about the boob tube and couch potatoes, then they settle into their sofas and grab the remote control. Parents commonly fret about their childrens viewing (if not their own). Even researchers who study TV for a living marvel at the mediums hold on them personally. Percy Tannenbaum of the University of California at Berkeley has written: Among lifes more embarrassing moments have been countless occasions when I am engaged in conversation in a room while a TV set is on, and I cannot for the life of me stop from periodically glancing over to the screen. This occurs not only during dull conversations but during reasonably interesting ones just as well. B. Scientists have been studying the effects of television for decades, generally focusing on whether watching violence on TV correlates with being violent in real life. Less attention has been paid to the basic allure of the small screenthe medium, as opposed to the message. The term TV addiction is imprecise and laden with value judgments, but it captures the essence of a very real phenomenon. Psychologists and psychiatrists formally define substance dependence as a disorder characterized by criteria that include spending a great deal of time using the substance; using it more often than one intends; thinking about reducing use or making repeated unsuccessful efforts to reduce use; giving up important social, family or occupational activities to use it; and reporting withdrawal symptoms when one stops using it. All these criteria can apply to people who watch a lot of television. That does not mean that watching television, in itself, is problematic. Television can teach and amuse; it can reach aesthetic heights; it can provide much needed distraction and escape. The difficulty arises when people strongly sense that they ought not to watch as much as they do and yet find themselves strangely unable to reduce their viewing. Some knowledge of how the medium exerts its pull may help heavy viewers gain better control over their lives. The amount of time people spend watching television is astonishing. On average, individuals in the industrialized world devote three hours a day to the pursuitfully half of their leisure time, and more than on any single activity save work and sleep. At this rate, someone who lives to 75 would spend nine years in front of the tube. To some commentators, this devotion means simply that people enjoy TV and make a conscious decision to watch it. But if that is the whole story, why do so many people experience misgivings about how much they view? In Gallup polls in 1992 and 1999, two out of five adult respondents and seven out of 10 teenagers said they spent too much time watching TV. Other surveys have consistently shown that roughly 10 percent of adults call themselves TV addicts. What is it about TV that has such a hold on US? In part, the attraction seems to spring from our biological orienting response. First described by IvanPavlov in 1927, the orienting response is our instinctive visual or auditory reaction to any sudden or novel stimulus. It is part of our evolutionary heritage, a built-in sensitivity to movement and potential predatory threats. In 1986 Byron Reeves of Stanford University, Esther Thorson of the University of Missouri and their colleagues began to study whether the simple formal features of television-cuts, edits, zooms, pans, sudden noisesactivate the orienting response, thereby keeping attention on the screen. By watching how brain waves were affected by formal features, the researchers concluded that these stylistic tricks can indeed trigger involuntary responses and derive their attention-al value through the evolutionary significance of detecting movement.... It is the form, not the content, of television that is unique. The orienting response may partly explain common viewer remarks such as: If a television is on, I just cant keep my eyes off it, I dont want to watch as much as I do, but I cant help it, and I feel hypnotized when I watch television. In the years since Reeves and Thorson published then pioneering work, researchers have delved deeper. Annie Langs research team at Indiana University has shown that heart rate decreases for four to six seconds after an orienting stimulus. In ads, action sequences and music videos, formal features frequently come at a rate of one per second, thus activating the orienting response continuously. Lang and her colleagues have also investigated whether formal features affect peoples memory of what they have seen. In one of their studies, participants watched a program and then filled out a score sheet. Increasing the frequency of edits (defined here as a change from one camera angle to another in the same visual scene) improved memory recognition, presumably because it focused attention on the screen. Increasing the frequency of cutschanges to a new visual scene-had a similar effect but only up to a point. If the number of cuts exceeded 10 in two minutes, recognition dropped off sharply. Producers of educational television for children have found that formal features can help learning. But increasing the rate of cuts and edits eventually overloads the brain. Music videos and commercials that use rapid intercutting of unrelated scenes are designed to hold attention more than they are to convey information. People may remember the name of the product or band, but the details of the ad itself float in one ear and out the other. The orienting response is overworked. Viewers still attend to the screen, but they feel tired and worn out, with little compensating psychological reward. Our ESM findings show much the same thing. K. Sometimes the memory of the product is very subtle. Many ads today are deliberately oblique: they have an engaging story line, but it is hard to tell what they are trying to sell. Afterward you may not remember the product consciously. Yet advertisers believe that if they have gotten your attention, when you later go to the store you will feel better or more comfortable with a given product because you have a vague recollection of having heard of it. You should spend about 20 minutes on question 27-40, which are based on reading passage 3 on the following pages. | Information medium as TV has always been the priority for scientific research. | contradiction |
id_5814 | TV Addiction 2 Excessive cravings do not necessarily involve physical substances. Gambling can become compulsive; sex can become obsessive. One activity, however, stands out for its prominence and ubiquitythe worlds most popular pastime, television. Most people admit to having a love-bate relationship with it. They complain about the boob tube and couch potatoes, then they settle into their sofas and grab the remote control. Parents commonly fret about their childrens viewing (if not their own). Even researchers who study TV for a living marvel at the mediums hold on them personally. Percy Tannenbaum of the University of California at Berkeley has written: Among lifes more embarrassing moments have been countless occasions when I am engaged in conversation in a room while a TV set is on, and I cannot for the life of me stop from periodically glancing over to the screen. This occurs not only during dull conversations but during reasonably interesting ones just as well. B. Scientists have been studying the effects of television for decades, generally focusing on whether watching violence on TV correlates with being violent in real life. Less attention has been paid to the basic allure of the small screenthe medium, as opposed to the message. The term TV addiction is imprecise and laden with value judgments, but it captures the essence of a very real phenomenon. Psychologists and psychiatrists formally define substance dependence as a disorder characterized by criteria that include spending a great deal of time using the substance; using it more often than one intends; thinking about reducing use or making repeated unsuccessful efforts to reduce use; giving up important social, family or occupational activities to use it; and reporting withdrawal symptoms when one stops using it. All these criteria can apply to people who watch a lot of television. That does not mean that watching television, in itself, is problematic. Television can teach and amuse; it can reach aesthetic heights; it can provide much needed distraction and escape. The difficulty arises when people strongly sense that they ought not to watch as much as they do and yet find themselves strangely unable to reduce their viewing. Some knowledge of how the medium exerts its pull may help heavy viewers gain better control over their lives. The amount of time people spend watching television is astonishing. On average, individuals in the industrialized world devote three hours a day to the pursuitfully half of their leisure time, and more than on any single activity save work and sleep. At this rate, someone who lives to 75 would spend nine years in front of the tube. To some commentators, this devotion means simply that people enjoy TV and make a conscious decision to watch it. But if that is the whole story, why do so many people experience misgivings about how much they view? In Gallup polls in 1992 and 1999, two out of five adult respondents and seven out of 10 teenagers said they spent too much time watching TV. Other surveys have consistently shown that roughly 10 percent of adults call themselves TV addicts. What is it about TV that has such a hold on US? In part, the attraction seems to spring from our biological orienting response. First described by IvanPavlov in 1927, the orienting response is our instinctive visual or auditory reaction to any sudden or novel stimulus. It is part of our evolutionary heritage, a built-in sensitivity to movement and potential predatory threats. In 1986 Byron Reeves of Stanford University, Esther Thorson of the University of Missouri and their colleagues began to study whether the simple formal features of television-cuts, edits, zooms, pans, sudden noisesactivate the orienting response, thereby keeping attention on the screen. By watching how brain waves were affected by formal features, the researchers concluded that these stylistic tricks can indeed trigger involuntary responses and derive their attention-al value through the evolutionary significance of detecting movement.... It is the form, not the content, of television that is unique. The orienting response may partly explain common viewer remarks such as: If a television is on, I just cant keep my eyes off it, I dont want to watch as much as I do, but I cant help it, and I feel hypnotized when I watch television. In the years since Reeves and Thorson published then pioneering work, researchers have delved deeper. Annie Langs research team at Indiana University has shown that heart rate decreases for four to six seconds after an orienting stimulus. In ads, action sequences and music videos, formal features frequently come at a rate of one per second, thus activating the orienting response continuously. Lang and her colleagues have also investigated whether formal features affect peoples memory of what they have seen. In one of their studies, participants watched a program and then filled out a score sheet. Increasing the frequency of edits (defined here as a change from one camera angle to another in the same visual scene) improved memory recognition, presumably because it focused attention on the screen. Increasing the frequency of cutschanges to a new visual scene-had a similar effect but only up to a point. If the number of cuts exceeded 10 in two minutes, recognition dropped off sharply. Producers of educational television for children have found that formal features can help learning. But increasing the rate of cuts and edits eventually overloads the brain. Music videos and commercials that use rapid intercutting of unrelated scenes are designed to hold attention more than they are to convey information. People may remember the name of the product or band, but the details of the ad itself float in one ear and out the other. The orienting response is overworked. Viewers still attend to the screen, but they feel tired and worn out, with little compensating psychological reward. Our ESM findings show much the same thing. K. Sometimes the memory of the product is very subtle. Many ads today are deliberately oblique: they have an engaging story line, but it is hard to tell what they are trying to sell. Afterward you may not remember the product consciously. Yet advertisers believe that if they have gotten your attention, when you later go to the store you will feel better or more comfortable with a given product because you have a vague recollection of having heard of it. You should spend about 20 minutes on question 27-40, which are based on reading passage 3 on the following pages. | It is partially unscientific to use the term TV addiction. | entailment |
id_5815 | TV Addiction 2 Excessive cravings do not necessarily involve physical substances. Gambling can become compulsive; sex can become obsessive. One activity, however, stands out for its prominence and ubiquitythe worlds most popular pastime, television. Most people admit to having a love-bate relationship with it. They complain about the boob tube and couch potatoes, then they settle into their sofas and grab the remote control. Parents commonly fret about their childrens viewing (if not their own). Even researchers who study TV for a living marvel at the mediums hold on them personally. Percy Tannenbaum of the University of California at Berkeley has written: Among lifes more embarrassing moments have been countless occasions when I am engaged in conversation in a room while a TV set is on, and I cannot for the life of me stop from periodically glancing over to the screen. This occurs not only during dull conversations but during reasonably interesting ones just as well. B. Scientists have been studying the effects of television for decades, generally focusing on whether watching violence on TV correlates with being violent in real life. Less attention has been paid to the basic allure of the small screenthe medium, as opposed to the message. The term TV addiction is imprecise and laden with value judgments, but it captures the essence of a very real phenomenon. Psychologists and psychiatrists formally define substance dependence as a disorder characterized by criteria that include spending a great deal of time using the substance; using it more often than one intends; thinking about reducing use or making repeated unsuccessful efforts to reduce use; giving up important social, family or occupational activities to use it; and reporting withdrawal symptoms when one stops using it. All these criteria can apply to people who watch a lot of television. That does not mean that watching television, in itself, is problematic. Television can teach and amuse; it can reach aesthetic heights; it can provide much needed distraction and escape. The difficulty arises when people strongly sense that they ought not to watch as much as they do and yet find themselves strangely unable to reduce their viewing. Some knowledge of how the medium exerts its pull may help heavy viewers gain better control over their lives. The amount of time people spend watching television is astonishing. On average, individuals in the industrialized world devote three hours a day to the pursuitfully half of their leisure time, and more than on any single activity save work and sleep. At this rate, someone who lives to 75 would spend nine years in front of the tube. To some commentators, this devotion means simply that people enjoy TV and make a conscious decision to watch it. But if that is the whole story, why do so many people experience misgivings about how much they view? In Gallup polls in 1992 and 1999, two out of five adult respondents and seven out of 10 teenagers said they spent too much time watching TV. Other surveys have consistently shown that roughly 10 percent of adults call themselves TV addicts. What is it about TV that has such a hold on US? In part, the attraction seems to spring from our biological orienting response. First described by IvanPavlov in 1927, the orienting response is our instinctive visual or auditory reaction to any sudden or novel stimulus. It is part of our evolutionary heritage, a built-in sensitivity to movement and potential predatory threats. In 1986 Byron Reeves of Stanford University, Esther Thorson of the University of Missouri and their colleagues began to study whether the simple formal features of television-cuts, edits, zooms, pans, sudden noisesactivate the orienting response, thereby keeping attention on the screen. By watching how brain waves were affected by formal features, the researchers concluded that these stylistic tricks can indeed trigger involuntary responses and derive their attention-al value through the evolutionary significance of detecting movement.... It is the form, not the content, of television that is unique. The orienting response may partly explain common viewer remarks such as: If a television is on, I just cant keep my eyes off it, I dont want to watch as much as I do, but I cant help it, and I feel hypnotized when I watch television. In the years since Reeves and Thorson published then pioneering work, researchers have delved deeper. Annie Langs research team at Indiana University has shown that heart rate decreases for four to six seconds after an orienting stimulus. In ads, action sequences and music videos, formal features frequently come at a rate of one per second, thus activating the orienting response continuously. Lang and her colleagues have also investigated whether formal features affect peoples memory of what they have seen. In one of their studies, participants watched a program and then filled out a score sheet. Increasing the frequency of edits (defined here as a change from one camera angle to another in the same visual scene) improved memory recognition, presumably because it focused attention on the screen. Increasing the frequency of cutschanges to a new visual scene-had a similar effect but only up to a point. If the number of cuts exceeded 10 in two minutes, recognition dropped off sharply. Producers of educational television for children have found that formal features can help learning. But increasing the rate of cuts and edits eventually overloads the brain. Music videos and commercials that use rapid intercutting of unrelated scenes are designed to hold attention more than they are to convey information. People may remember the name of the product or band, but the details of the ad itself float in one ear and out the other. The orienting response is overworked. Viewers still attend to the screen, but they feel tired and worn out, with little compensating psychological reward. Our ESM findings show much the same thing. K. Sometimes the memory of the product is very subtle. Many ads today are deliberately oblique: they have an engaging story line, but it is hard to tell what they are trying to sell. Afterward you may not remember the product consciously. Yet advertisers believe that if they have gotten your attention, when you later go to the store you will feel better or more comfortable with a given product because you have a vague recollection of having heard of it. You should spend about 20 minutes on question 27-40, which are based on reading passage 3 on the following pages. | Children do not know why they exercise too little. | neutral |
id_5816 | TV Addiction The amount of time people spend watching television is astonishing. On average, individuals in the industrialized world devote three hours a day to the pursuit fully half of their leisure time, and more than on any single activity save work and sleep. At this rate, someone who lives to 75 would spend nine years in front of the tube. To some commentators, this devotion means simply that people enjoy TV and make a conscious decision to watch it. But if that is the whole story, why do so many people experience misgivings about how much they view? In Gallup polls in 1992 and 1999, two out of five adult respondents and seven out of 10 teenagers said they spent too much time watching TV. Other surveys have consistently shown that roughly 10 percent of adults call themselves TV addicts. To study peoples reactions to TV, researchers have experiments in which they have monitored the brain waves (using an electroencephalograph, or EEG) to track behaviour and emotion in the normal course of life, as opposed to the artificial conditions of the lab. Participants carried a beeper, and we signalled them six to eight times a day, at random, over the period of a week; whenever they heard the beep, they wrote down what they were doing and how they were feeling using a standardized scorecard. As one might expect, people who were watching TV when we beeped them reported feeling relaxed and passive. The EEG studies similarly show less mental stimulation, as measured by alpha brain-wave production, during viewing than during reading. What is more surprising is that the sense of relaxation ends when the set is turned off, but the feelings of passivity and lowered alertness continue. Survey participants say they have more difficulty concentrating after viewing than before. In contrast, they rarely indicate such difficulty after reading. After playing sports or engaging in hobbies, people report improvements in mood. After watching TV, peoples moods are about the same or worse than before. That may be because of viewers vague learned sense that they will feel less relaxed if they stop viewing. So they tend not to turn the set-off. Viewing begets more viewing which is the same as the experience of habit-forming drugs. Thus, the irony of TV: people watch a great deal longer than they plan to, even though prolonged viewing is less rewarding. In our ESM studies the longer people sat in front of the set, the less satisfaction they said they derived from it. For some, a twinge of unease or guilt that they arent doing something more productive may also accompany and depreciate the enjoyment of prolonged viewing. Researchers in Japan, the U. K. , and the U. S. have found that this guilt occurs much more among middle-class viewers than among less affluent ones. What is it about TV that has such a hold on us? In part, the attraction seems to spring from our biological orienting response/ First described by Ivan Pavlov in 1927, the orienting response is our instinctive visual or auditory reaction to any sudden or novel stimulus. It is part of our evolutionary heritage, a built-in sensitivity to movement and potential predatory threats. In 1986 Byron Reeves of Stanford University, Esther Thorson of the University of Missouri and their colleagues began to study whether the simple formal features of televisioncuts, edits, zooms, pans, sudden noises activate the orienting response, thereby keeping attention on the screen. By watching how brain waves were affected by formal features, the researchers concluded that these stylistic tricks can indeed trigger involuntary responses and derive their attentional value through the evolutionary significance of detecting movement... It is the form, not the content, of television that is unique. The natural attraction to televisions sound and the light starts very early in life. Dafna Lemish of Tel Aviv University has described babies at six to eight weeks attending to television. We have observed slightly older infants who, when lying on their backs on the floor, crane their necks around 180 degrees to catch what light through yonder window breaks. This inclination suggests how deeply rooted the orienting response is. The Experience Sampling Method permitted us to look closely at most every domain of everyday life: working, eating, reading, talking to friends, playing a sport, and so on. We found that heavy viewers report feeling significantly more anxious and less happy than light viewers do in unstructured situations, such as doing nothing, daydreaming or waiting in line. The difference widens when the viewer is alone. Subsequently, Robert D. Mcllwraith of the University of Manitoba extensively studied those who called themselves TV addicts on surveys. On a measure called the Short Imaginal Processes Inventory (SIPI), he found that the self-described addicts are more easily bored and distracted and have poorer attentional control than the non-addicts. The addicts said they used TV to distract themselves from unpleasant thoughts and to fill time. Other studies over the years have shown that heavy viewers are less likely to participate in community activities and sports and are more likely to be obese than moderate viewers or non-viewers. More than 25 years ago psychologist Tannis M. MacBeth Williams of the University of British Columbia studied a mountain community that had no television until cable finally arrived. Over time, both adults and children in the town became less creative in problem-solving, less able to persevere at tasks, and less tolerant of unstructured time. Nearly 40 years ago Gary A. Steiner of the University of Chicago collected fascinating individual accounts of families whose set had broken. In experiments, families have volunteered or been paid to stop viewing, typically for a week or a month. Some fought, verbally and physically. In a review of these cold-turkey studies, Charles Winick of the City University of New York concluded: The first three or four days for most persons were the worst, even in many homes where the viewing was minimal and where there were other ongoing activities. In over half of all the households, during these first few days of loss, the regular routines were disrupted, family members had difficulties in dealing with the newly available time, anxiety and aggressions were expressed. By the second week, a move toward adaptation to the situation was common. Unfortunately, researchers have yet to flesh out these anecdotes; no one has systematically gathered statistics on the prevalence of these withdrawal symptoms. Even though TV does seem to meet the criteria for substance dependence, not all researchers would go so far as to call TV addictive. Mcllwraith said in 1998 that displacement of other activities by television may be socially significant but still fall short of the clinical requirement of significant impairment. He argued that a new category of TV addiction may not be necessary if heavy viewing stems from conditions such as depression and social phobia. Nevertheless, whether or not we formally diagnose someone as TV-dependent, millions of people sense that they cannot readily control the amount of television they watch. | Middle-class viewers are more likely to feel guilty about watching TV than the poor. | contradiction |
id_5817 | TV Addiction The amount of time people spend watching television is astonishing. On average, individuals in the industrialized world devote three hours a day to the pursuit fully half of their leisure time, and more than on any single activity save work and sleep. At this rate, someone who lives to 75 would spend nine years in front of the tube. To some commentators, this devotion means simply that people enjoy TV and make a conscious decision to watch it. But if that is the whole story, why do so many people experience misgivings about how much they view? In Gallup polls in 1992 and 1999, two out of five adult respondents and seven out of 10 teenagers said they spent too much time watching TV. Other surveys have consistently shown that roughly 10 percent of adults call themselves TV addicts. To study peoples reactions to TV, researchers have experiments in which they have monitored the brain waves (using an electroencephalograph, or EEG) to track behaviour and emotion in the normal course of life, as opposed to the artificial conditions of the lab. Participants carried a beeper, and we signalled them six to eight times a day, at random, over the period of a week; whenever they heard the beep, they wrote down what they were doing and how they were feeling using a standardized scorecard. As one might expect, people who were watching TV when we beeped them reported feeling relaxed and passive. The EEG studies similarly show less mental stimulation, as measured by alpha brain-wave production, during viewing than during reading. What is more surprising is that the sense of relaxation ends when the set is turned off, but the feelings of passivity and lowered alertness continue. Survey participants say they have more difficulty concentrating after viewing than before. In contrast, they rarely indicate such difficulty after reading. After playing sports or engaging in hobbies, people report improvements in mood. After watching TV, peoples moods are about the same or worse than before. That may be because of viewers vague learned sense that they will feel less relaxed if they stop viewing. So they tend not to turn the set-off. Viewing begets more viewing which is the same as the experience of habit-forming drugs. Thus, the irony of TV: people watch a great deal longer than they plan to, even though prolonged viewing is less rewarding. In our ESM studies the longer people sat in front of the set, the less satisfaction they said they derived from it. For some, a twinge of unease or guilt that they arent doing something more productive may also accompany and depreciate the enjoyment of prolonged viewing. Researchers in Japan, the U. K. , and the U. S. have found that this guilt occurs much more among middle-class viewers than among less affluent ones. What is it about TV that has such a hold on us? In part, the attraction seems to spring from our biological orienting response/ First described by Ivan Pavlov in 1927, the orienting response is our instinctive visual or auditory reaction to any sudden or novel stimulus. It is part of our evolutionary heritage, a built-in sensitivity to movement and potential predatory threats. In 1986 Byron Reeves of Stanford University, Esther Thorson of the University of Missouri and their colleagues began to study whether the simple formal features of televisioncuts, edits, zooms, pans, sudden noises activate the orienting response, thereby keeping attention on the screen. By watching how brain waves were affected by formal features, the researchers concluded that these stylistic tricks can indeed trigger involuntary responses and derive their attentional value through the evolutionary significance of detecting movement... It is the form, not the content, of television that is unique. The natural attraction to televisions sound and the light starts very early in life. Dafna Lemish of Tel Aviv University has described babies at six to eight weeks attending to television. We have observed slightly older infants who, when lying on their backs on the floor, crane their necks around 180 degrees to catch what light through yonder window breaks. This inclination suggests how deeply rooted the orienting response is. The Experience Sampling Method permitted us to look closely at most every domain of everyday life: working, eating, reading, talking to friends, playing a sport, and so on. We found that heavy viewers report feeling significantly more anxious and less happy than light viewers do in unstructured situations, such as doing nothing, daydreaming or waiting in line. The difference widens when the viewer is alone. Subsequently, Robert D. Mcllwraith of the University of Manitoba extensively studied those who called themselves TV addicts on surveys. On a measure called the Short Imaginal Processes Inventory (SIPI), he found that the self-described addicts are more easily bored and distracted and have poorer attentional control than the non-addicts. The addicts said they used TV to distract themselves from unpleasant thoughts and to fill time. Other studies over the years have shown that heavy viewers are less likely to participate in community activities and sports and are more likely to be obese than moderate viewers or non-viewers. More than 25 years ago psychologist Tannis M. MacBeth Williams of the University of British Columbia studied a mountain community that had no television until cable finally arrived. Over time, both adults and children in the town became less creative in problem-solving, less able to persevere at tasks, and less tolerant of unstructured time. Nearly 40 years ago Gary A. Steiner of the University of Chicago collected fascinating individual accounts of families whose set had broken. In experiments, families have volunteered or been paid to stop viewing, typically for a week or a month. Some fought, verbally and physically. In a review of these cold-turkey studies, Charles Winick of the City University of New York concluded: The first three or four days for most persons were the worst, even in many homes where the viewing was minimal and where there were other ongoing activities. In over half of all the households, during these first few days of loss, the regular routines were disrupted, family members had difficulties in dealing with the newly available time, anxiety and aggressions were expressed. By the second week, a move toward adaptation to the situation was common. Unfortunately, researchers have yet to flesh out these anecdotes; no one has systematically gathered statistics on the prevalence of these withdrawal symptoms. Even though TV does seem to meet the criteria for substance dependence, not all researchers would go so far as to call TV addictive. Mcllwraith said in 1998 that displacement of other activities by television may be socially significant but still fall short of the clinical requirement of significant impairment. He argued that a new category of TV addiction may not be necessary if heavy viewing stems from conditions such as depression and social phobia. Nevertheless, whether or not we formally diagnose someone as TV-dependent, millions of people sense that they cannot readily control the amount of television they watch. | It is reported that peoples satisfaction is in proportion to the time they spend watching TV. | contradiction |
id_5818 | TV Addiction The amount of time people spend watching television is astonishing. On average, individuals in the industrialized world devote three hours a day to the pursuit fully half of their leisure time, and more than on any single activity save work and sleep. At this rate, someone who lives to 75 would spend nine years in front of the tube. To some commentators, this devotion means simply that people enjoy TV and make a conscious decision to watch it. But if that is the whole story, why do so many people experience misgivings about how much they view? In Gallup polls in 1992 and 1999, two out of five adult respondents and seven out of 10 teenagers said they spent too much time watching TV. Other surveys have consistently shown that roughly 10 percent of adults call themselves TV addicts. To study peoples reactions to TV, researchers have experiments in which they have monitored the brain waves (using an electroencephalograph, or EEG) to track behaviour and emotion in the normal course of life, as opposed to the artificial conditions of the lab. Participants carried a beeper, and we signalled them six to eight times a day, at random, over the period of a week; whenever they heard the beep, they wrote down what they were doing and how they were feeling using a standardized scorecard. As one might expect, people who were watching TV when we beeped them reported feeling relaxed and passive. The EEG studies similarly show less mental stimulation, as measured by alpha brain-wave production, during viewing than during reading. What is more surprising is that the sense of relaxation ends when the set is turned off, but the feelings of passivity and lowered alertness continue. Survey participants say they have more difficulty concentrating after viewing than before. In contrast, they rarely indicate such difficulty after reading. After playing sports or engaging in hobbies, people report improvements in mood. After watching TV, peoples moods are about the same or worse than before. That may be because of viewers vague learned sense that they will feel less relaxed if they stop viewing. So they tend not to turn the set-off. Viewing begets more viewing which is the same as the experience of habit-forming drugs. Thus, the irony of TV: people watch a great deal longer than they plan to, even though prolonged viewing is less rewarding. In our ESM studies the longer people sat in front of the set, the less satisfaction they said they derived from it. For some, a twinge of unease or guilt that they arent doing something more productive may also accompany and depreciate the enjoyment of prolonged viewing. Researchers in Japan, the U. K. , and the U. S. have found that this guilt occurs much more among middle-class viewers than among less affluent ones. What is it about TV that has such a hold on us? In part, the attraction seems to spring from our biological orienting response/ First described by Ivan Pavlov in 1927, the orienting response is our instinctive visual or auditory reaction to any sudden or novel stimulus. It is part of our evolutionary heritage, a built-in sensitivity to movement and potential predatory threats. In 1986 Byron Reeves of Stanford University, Esther Thorson of the University of Missouri and their colleagues began to study whether the simple formal features of televisioncuts, edits, zooms, pans, sudden noises activate the orienting response, thereby keeping attention on the screen. By watching how brain waves were affected by formal features, the researchers concluded that these stylistic tricks can indeed trigger involuntary responses and derive their attentional value through the evolutionary significance of detecting movement... It is the form, not the content, of television that is unique. The natural attraction to televisions sound and the light starts very early in life. Dafna Lemish of Tel Aviv University has described babies at six to eight weeks attending to television. We have observed slightly older infants who, when lying on their backs on the floor, crane their necks around 180 degrees to catch what light through yonder window breaks. This inclination suggests how deeply rooted the orienting response is. The Experience Sampling Method permitted us to look closely at most every domain of everyday life: working, eating, reading, talking to friends, playing a sport, and so on. We found that heavy viewers report feeling significantly more anxious and less happy than light viewers do in unstructured situations, such as doing nothing, daydreaming or waiting in line. The difference widens when the viewer is alone. Subsequently, Robert D. Mcllwraith of the University of Manitoba extensively studied those who called themselves TV addicts on surveys. On a measure called the Short Imaginal Processes Inventory (SIPI), he found that the self-described addicts are more easily bored and distracted and have poorer attentional control than the non-addicts. The addicts said they used TV to distract themselves from unpleasant thoughts and to fill time. Other studies over the years have shown that heavy viewers are less likely to participate in community activities and sports and are more likely to be obese than moderate viewers or non-viewers. More than 25 years ago psychologist Tannis M. MacBeth Williams of the University of British Columbia studied a mountain community that had no television until cable finally arrived. Over time, both adults and children in the town became less creative in problem-solving, less able to persevere at tasks, and less tolerant of unstructured time. Nearly 40 years ago Gary A. Steiner of the University of Chicago collected fascinating individual accounts of families whose set had broken. In experiments, families have volunteered or been paid to stop viewing, typically for a week or a month. Some fought, verbally and physically. In a review of these cold-turkey studies, Charles Winick of the City University of New York concluded: The first three or four days for most persons were the worst, even in many homes where the viewing was minimal and where there were other ongoing activities. In over half of all the households, during these first few days of loss, the regular routines were disrupted, family members had difficulties in dealing with the newly available time, anxiety and aggressions were expressed. By the second week, a move toward adaptation to the situation was common. Unfortunately, researchers have yet to flesh out these anecdotes; no one has systematically gathered statistics on the prevalence of these withdrawal symptoms. Even though TV does seem to meet the criteria for substance dependence, not all researchers would go so far as to call TV addictive. Mcllwraith said in 1998 that displacement of other activities by television may be socially significant but still fall short of the clinical requirement of significant impairment. He argued that a new category of TV addiction may not be necessary if heavy viewing stems from conditions such as depression and social phobia. Nevertheless, whether or not we formally diagnose someone as TV-dependent, millions of people sense that they cannot readily control the amount of television they watch. | TV addiction works in similar ways as drugs. | entailment |
id_5819 | TV Addiction The amount of time people spend watching television is astonishing. On average, individuals in the industrialized world devote three hours a day to the pursuit fully half of their leisure time, and more than on any single activity save work and sleep. At this rate, someone who lives to 75 would spend nine years in front of the tube. To some commentators, this devotion means simply that people enjoy TV and make a conscious decision to watch it. But if that is the whole story, why do so many people experience misgivings about how much they view? In Gallup polls in 1992 and 1999, two out of five adult respondents and seven out of 10 teenagers said they spent too much time watching TV. Other surveys have consistently shown that roughly 10 percent of adults call themselves TV addicts. To study peoples reactions to TV, researchers have experiments in which they have monitored the brain waves (using an electroencephalograph, or EEG) to track behaviour and emotion in the normal course of life, as opposed to the artificial conditions of the lab. Participants carried a beeper, and we signalled them six to eight times a day, at random, over the period of a week; whenever they heard the beep, they wrote down what they were doing and how they were feeling using a standardized scorecard. As one might expect, people who were watching TV when we beeped them reported feeling relaxed and passive. The EEG studies similarly show less mental stimulation, as measured by alpha brain-wave production, during viewing than during reading. What is more surprising is that the sense of relaxation ends when the set is turned off, but the feelings of passivity and lowered alertness continue. Survey participants say they have more difficulty concentrating after viewing than before. In contrast, they rarely indicate such difficulty after reading. After playing sports or engaging in hobbies, people report improvements in mood. After watching TV, peoples moods are about the same or worse than before. That may be because of viewers vague learned sense that they will feel less relaxed if they stop viewing. So they tend not to turn the set-off. Viewing begets more viewing which is the same as the experience of habit-forming drugs. Thus, the irony of TV: people watch a great deal longer than they plan to, even though prolonged viewing is less rewarding. In our ESM studies the longer people sat in front of the set, the less satisfaction they said they derived from it. For some, a twinge of unease or guilt that they arent doing something more productive may also accompany and depreciate the enjoyment of prolonged viewing. Researchers in Japan, the U. K. , and the U. S. have found that this guilt occurs much more among middle-class viewers than among less affluent ones. What is it about TV that has such a hold on us? In part, the attraction seems to spring from our biological orienting response/ First described by Ivan Pavlov in 1927, the orienting response is our instinctive visual or auditory reaction to any sudden or novel stimulus. It is part of our evolutionary heritage, a built-in sensitivity to movement and potential predatory threats. In 1986 Byron Reeves of Stanford University, Esther Thorson of the University of Missouri and their colleagues began to study whether the simple formal features of televisioncuts, edits, zooms, pans, sudden noises activate the orienting response, thereby keeping attention on the screen. By watching how brain waves were affected by formal features, the researchers concluded that these stylistic tricks can indeed trigger involuntary responses and derive their attentional value through the evolutionary significance of detecting movement... It is the form, not the content, of television that is unique. The natural attraction to televisions sound and the light starts very early in life. Dafna Lemish of Tel Aviv University has described babies at six to eight weeks attending to television. We have observed slightly older infants who, when lying on their backs on the floor, crane their necks around 180 degrees to catch what light through yonder window breaks. This inclination suggests how deeply rooted the orienting response is. The Experience Sampling Method permitted us to look closely at most every domain of everyday life: working, eating, reading, talking to friends, playing a sport, and so on. We found that heavy viewers report feeling significantly more anxious and less happy than light viewers do in unstructured situations, such as doing nothing, daydreaming or waiting in line. The difference widens when the viewer is alone. Subsequently, Robert D. Mcllwraith of the University of Manitoba extensively studied those who called themselves TV addicts on surveys. On a measure called the Short Imaginal Processes Inventory (SIPI), he found that the self-described addicts are more easily bored and distracted and have poorer attentional control than the non-addicts. The addicts said they used TV to distract themselves from unpleasant thoughts and to fill time. Other studies over the years have shown that heavy viewers are less likely to participate in community activities and sports and are more likely to be obese than moderate viewers or non-viewers. More than 25 years ago psychologist Tannis M. MacBeth Williams of the University of British Columbia studied a mountain community that had no television until cable finally arrived. Over time, both adults and children in the town became less creative in problem-solving, less able to persevere at tasks, and less tolerant of unstructured time. Nearly 40 years ago Gary A. Steiner of the University of Chicago collected fascinating individual accounts of families whose set had broken. In experiments, families have volunteered or been paid to stop viewing, typically for a week or a month. Some fought, verbally and physically. In a review of these cold-turkey studies, Charles Winick of the City University of New York concluded: The first three or four days for most persons were the worst, even in many homes where the viewing was minimal and where there were other ongoing activities. In over half of all the households, during these first few days of loss, the regular routines were disrupted, family members had difficulties in dealing with the newly available time, anxiety and aggressions were expressed. By the second week, a move toward adaptation to the situation was common. Unfortunately, researchers have yet to flesh out these anecdotes; no one has systematically gathered statistics on the prevalence of these withdrawal symptoms. Even though TV does seem to meet the criteria for substance dependence, not all researchers would go so far as to call TV addictive. Mcllwraith said in 1998 that displacement of other activities by television may be socially significant but still fall short of the clinical requirement of significant impairment. He argued that a new category of TV addiction may not be necessary if heavy viewing stems from conditions such as depression and social phobia. Nevertheless, whether or not we formally diagnose someone as TV-dependent, millions of people sense that they cannot readily control the amount of television they watch. | Greater improvements in mood are experienced after watching TV than playing sports. | contradiction |
id_5820 | TV Addiction The amount of time people spend watching television is astonishing. On average, individuals in the industrialized world devote three hours a day to the pursuit fully half of their leisure time, and more than on any single activity save work and sleep. At this rate, someone who lives to 75 would spend nine years in front of the tube. To some commentators, this devotion means simply that people enjoy TV and make a conscious decision to watch it. But if that is the whole story, why do so many people experience misgivings about how much they view? In Gallup polls in 1992 and 1999, two out of five adult respondents and seven out of 10 teenagers said they spent too much time watching TV. Other surveys have consistently shown that roughly 10 percent of adults call themselves TV addicts. To study peoples reactions to TV, researchers have experiments in which they have monitored the brain waves (using an electroencephalograph, or EEG) to track behaviour and emotion in the normal course of life, as opposed to the artificial conditions of the lab. Participants carried a beeper, and we signalled them six to eight times a day, at random, over the period of a week; whenever they heard the beep, they wrote down what they were doing and how they were feeling using a standardized scorecard. As one might expect, people who were watching TV when we beeped them reported feeling relaxed and passive. The EEG studies similarly show less mental stimulation, as measured by alpha brain-wave production, during viewing than during reading. What is more surprising is that the sense of relaxation ends when the set is turned off, but the feelings of passivity and lowered alertness continue. Survey participants say they have more difficulty concentrating after viewing than before. In contrast, they rarely indicate such difficulty after reading. After playing sports or engaging in hobbies, people report improvements in mood. After watching TV, peoples moods are about the same or worse than before. That may be because of viewers vague learned sense that they will feel less relaxed if they stop viewing. So they tend not to turn the set-off. Viewing begets more viewing which is the same as the experience of habit-forming drugs. Thus, the irony of TV: people watch a great deal longer than they plan to, even though prolonged viewing is less rewarding. In our ESM studies the longer people sat in front of the set, the less satisfaction they said they derived from it. For some, a twinge of unease or guilt that they arent doing something more productive may also accompany and depreciate the enjoyment of prolonged viewing. Researchers in Japan, the U. K. , and the U. S. have found that this guilt occurs much more among middle-class viewers than among less affluent ones. What is it about TV that has such a hold on us? In part, the attraction seems to spring from our biological orienting response/ First described by Ivan Pavlov in 1927, the orienting response is our instinctive visual or auditory reaction to any sudden or novel stimulus. It is part of our evolutionary heritage, a built-in sensitivity to movement and potential predatory threats. In 1986 Byron Reeves of Stanford University, Esther Thorson of the University of Missouri and their colleagues began to study whether the simple formal features of televisioncuts, edits, zooms, pans, sudden noises activate the orienting response, thereby keeping attention on the screen. By watching how brain waves were affected by formal features, the researchers concluded that these stylistic tricks can indeed trigger involuntary responses and derive their attentional value through the evolutionary significance of detecting movement... It is the form, not the content, of television that is unique. The natural attraction to televisions sound and the light starts very early in life. Dafna Lemish of Tel Aviv University has described babies at six to eight weeks attending to television. We have observed slightly older infants who, when lying on their backs on the floor, crane their necks around 180 degrees to catch what light through yonder window breaks. This inclination suggests how deeply rooted the orienting response is. The Experience Sampling Method permitted us to look closely at most every domain of everyday life: working, eating, reading, talking to friends, playing a sport, and so on. We found that heavy viewers report feeling significantly more anxious and less happy than light viewers do in unstructured situations, such as doing nothing, daydreaming or waiting in line. The difference widens when the viewer is alone. Subsequently, Robert D. Mcllwraith of the University of Manitoba extensively studied those who called themselves TV addicts on surveys. On a measure called the Short Imaginal Processes Inventory (SIPI), he found that the self-described addicts are more easily bored and distracted and have poorer attentional control than the non-addicts. The addicts said they used TV to distract themselves from unpleasant thoughts and to fill time. Other studies over the years have shown that heavy viewers are less likely to participate in community activities and sports and are more likely to be obese than moderate viewers or non-viewers. More than 25 years ago psychologist Tannis M. MacBeth Williams of the University of British Columbia studied a mountain community that had no television until cable finally arrived. Over time, both adults and children in the town became less creative in problem-solving, less able to persevere at tasks, and less tolerant of unstructured time. Nearly 40 years ago Gary A. Steiner of the University of Chicago collected fascinating individual accounts of families whose set had broken. In experiments, families have volunteered or been paid to stop viewing, typically for a week or a month. Some fought, verbally and physically. In a review of these cold-turkey studies, Charles Winick of the City University of New York concluded: The first three or four days for most persons were the worst, even in many homes where the viewing was minimal and where there were other ongoing activities. In over half of all the households, during these first few days of loss, the regular routines were disrupted, family members had difficulties in dealing with the newly available time, anxiety and aggressions were expressed. By the second week, a move toward adaptation to the situation was common. Unfortunately, researchers have yet to flesh out these anecdotes; no one has systematically gathered statistics on the prevalence of these withdrawal symptoms. Even though TV does seem to meet the criteria for substance dependence, not all researchers would go so far as to call TV addictive. Mcllwraith said in 1998 that displacement of other activities by television may be socially significant but still fall short of the clinical requirement of significant impairment. He argued that a new category of TV addiction may not be necessary if heavy viewing stems from conditions such as depression and social phobia. Nevertheless, whether or not we formally diagnose someone as TV-dependent, millions of people sense that they cannot readily control the amount of television they watch. | Study shows that males are more likely to be addicted to TV than females. | neutral |
id_5821 | Take a ferry or a boat instead of a bus to reach the Kravi islands faster | The islands being in remote location are not easily accessible. | neutral |
id_5822 | Take a ferry or a boat instead of a bus to reach the Kravi islands faster | Ferries and boats are available to travel to Kravi islands. | entailment |
id_5823 | Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by"anthropogenic factors, " i. e. , human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well-grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect | The majority of non-scientific communities currently believe in the greenhouse effect. | neutral |
id_5824 | Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by"anthropogenic factors, " i. e. , human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well-grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect | There is unequivocal evidence for the existence of a greenhouse effect. | contradiction |
id_5825 | Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by"anthropogenic factors, " i. e. , human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well-grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect | The greenhouse effect is defined as an increasingly hot Earth and increasingly hot oceans. | neutral |
id_5826 | Take a very commonplace, often discussed and critical topic: Are we detecting a greenhouse effect, and related to this, is it exacerbated by"anthropogenic factors, " i. e. , human actions? Most would be inclined to give a positive answer to both of these questions. But, if pushed, what would be the evidence, and how well-grounded would it be for such affirmations? Within scientific communities and associated scientifically informed circles, the answers have to be somewhat more ambiguous, particularly when rigorous questions concerning evidence are raised. Were scientific truth to be a matter of consensus, and some argue that scientific truth often turns out to be just that, then it is clear that there is beginning to be a kind of majority consensus among many earth science practitioners that the temperature of the Earth, particularly of the oceans, is indeed rising and that this is a crucial indicator for a possible greenhouse effect | Scientists disagree on the impact human actions have on the greenhouse effect. | neutral |
id_5827 | Taking Wing To eke out a full-time living from their honeybees, about half the nations 2,000 commercial beekeepers pull up stakes each spring, migrating north to find more flowers for their bees. Besides turning floral nectar into honey, these hardworking insects also pollinate crops for farmers -for a fee. As autumn approaches, the beekeepers pack up their hives and go south, scrambling for pollination contracts in hot spots like Californias fertile Central Valley. Of the 2,000 commercial beekeepers in the United States about half migrate This pays off in two ways Moving north in the summer and south in the winter lets bees work a longer blooming season, making more honey and money for their keepers. Second, beekeepers can carry their hives to farmers who need bees to pollinate their crops. Every spring a migratory beekeeper in California may move up to 160 million bees toRreading flowering fields in Minnesota and every winter his family may haul the hives back to California, where farmers will rent the bees to pollinate almond and cherry trees. Migratory beekeeping is nothing new. The ancient Egyptians moved clay hives, probably on rafts, down the Nile to follow the bloom and nectar flow as it moved toward Cairo. In the 1880s North American beekeepers experimented with the same idea, moving bees on barges along the Mississippi and on waterways in Florida, but their lighter, wooden hives kept falling into the water. Other keepers tried the railroad and horse- drawn wagons, but that didnt prove practical. Not until the 1920s when cars and trucks became affordable and roads improved, did migratory beekeeping begin to catch on. For the Californian beekeeper, the pollination season begins in February. At this time, the beehives are in particular demand by farmers who have almond groves; they need two hives an acre. For the three-week long bloom, beekeepers can hire out their hives for $32 each. Its a bonanza for the bees too. Most people consider almond honey too bitter to eat so the bees get to keep it for themselves. By early March it is time to move the bees. It can take up to seven nights to pack the 4,000 or so hives that a beekeeper may own. These are not moved in the middle of the day because too many of the bees would end up homeless. But at night, the hives are stacked onto wooden pallets, back-to-back in sets of four, and lifted onto a truck. It is not necessary to wear gloves or a beekeepers veil because the hives are not being opened and the bees should remain relatively quiet. Just in case some are still lively, bees can be pacified with a few puffs of smoke blown into each hives narrow entrance. In their new location, the beekeeper will pay the farmer to allow his bees to feed in such places as orange groves. The honey produced here is fragrant and sweet and can be sold by the beekeepers. To encourage the bees to produce as much honey as possible during this period, the beekeepers open the hives and stack extra boxes called supers on top. These temporary hive extensions contain frames of empty comb for the bees to fill with honey. In the brood chamber below, the bees will stash honey to eat later. To prevent the queen from crawling up to the top and laying eggs, a screen can be inserted between the brood chamber and the supers. Three weeks later the honey can be gathered. Foul smelling chemicals are often used to irritate the bees and drive them down into the hives bottom boxes, leaving the honey- filled supers more or less bee free. These can then be pulled off the hive. They are heavy with honey and may weigh up to 90 pounds each. The supers are taken to a warehouse. In the extracting room, the frames are lilted out and lowered into an uncapper where rotating blades shave away the wax that covers each cell. The uncapped frames are put in a carousel that sits on the bottom of a large stainless steel drum. The carousel is filled to capacity with 72 frames. A switch is flipped and the frames begin to whirl at 300 revolutions per minute; centrifugal force throws the honey out of the combs. Finally the honey is poured into barrels for shipment. After this, approximately a quarter of the hives weakened by disease, mites, or an ageing or dead queen, will have to be replaced. To create new colonies, a healthy double hive, teeming with bees, can be separated into two boxes. One half will hold the queen and a young, already mated queen can be put in the other half, to make two hives from one. By the time the flowers bloom, the new queens will be laying eggs, filling each hive with young worker bees. The beekeepers family will then migrate with them to their summer location. Adapted from America's Beekeepers: Hives for Hire by Alan Mairson, National Geographic. | The honey is spun to make it liquid. | contradiction |
id_5828 | Taking Wing To eke out a full-time living from their honeybees, about half the nations 2,000 commercial beekeepers pull up stakes each spring, migrating north to find more flowers for their bees. Besides turning floral nectar into honey, these hardworking insects also pollinate crops for farmers -for a fee. As autumn approaches, the beekeepers pack up their hives and go south, scrambling for pollination contracts in hot spots like Californias fertile Central Valley. Of the 2,000 commercial beekeepers in the United States about half migrate This pays off in two ways Moving north in the summer and south in the winter lets bees work a longer blooming season, making more honey and money for their keepers. Second, beekeepers can carry their hives to farmers who need bees to pollinate their crops. Every spring a migratory beekeeper in California may move up to 160 million bees toRreading flowering fields in Minnesota and every winter his family may haul the hives back to California, where farmers will rent the bees to pollinate almond and cherry trees. Migratory beekeeping is nothing new. The ancient Egyptians moved clay hives, probably on rafts, down the Nile to follow the bloom and nectar flow as it moved toward Cairo. In the 1880s North American beekeepers experimented with the same idea, moving bees on barges along the Mississippi and on waterways in Florida, but their lighter, wooden hives kept falling into the water. Other keepers tried the railroad and horse- drawn wagons, but that didnt prove practical. Not until the 1920s when cars and trucks became affordable and roads improved, did migratory beekeeping begin to catch on. For the Californian beekeeper, the pollination season begins in February. At this time, the beehives are in particular demand by farmers who have almond groves; they need two hives an acre. For the three-week long bloom, beekeepers can hire out their hives for $32 each. Its a bonanza for the bees too. Most people consider almond honey too bitter to eat so the bees get to keep it for themselves. By early March it is time to move the bees. It can take up to seven nights to pack the 4,000 or so hives that a beekeeper may own. These are not moved in the middle of the day because too many of the bees would end up homeless. But at night, the hives are stacked onto wooden pallets, back-to-back in sets of four, and lifted onto a truck. It is not necessary to wear gloves or a beekeepers veil because the hives are not being opened and the bees should remain relatively quiet. Just in case some are still lively, bees can be pacified with a few puffs of smoke blown into each hives narrow entrance. In their new location, the beekeeper will pay the farmer to allow his bees to feed in such places as orange groves. The honey produced here is fragrant and sweet and can be sold by the beekeepers. To encourage the bees to produce as much honey as possible during this period, the beekeepers open the hives and stack extra boxes called supers on top. These temporary hive extensions contain frames of empty comb for the bees to fill with honey. In the brood chamber below, the bees will stash honey to eat later. To prevent the queen from crawling up to the top and laying eggs, a screen can be inserted between the brood chamber and the supers. Three weeks later the honey can be gathered. Foul smelling chemicals are often used to irritate the bees and drive them down into the hives bottom boxes, leaving the honey- filled supers more or less bee free. These can then be pulled off the hive. They are heavy with honey and may weigh up to 90 pounds each. The supers are taken to a warehouse. In the extracting room, the frames are lilted out and lowered into an uncapper where rotating blades shave away the wax that covers each cell. The uncapped frames are put in a carousel that sits on the bottom of a large stainless steel drum. The carousel is filled to capacity with 72 frames. A switch is flipped and the frames begin to whirl at 300 revolutions per minute; centrifugal force throws the honey out of the combs. Finally the honey is poured into barrels for shipment. After this, approximately a quarter of the hives weakened by disease, mites, or an ageing or dead queen, will have to be replaced. To create new colonies, a healthy double hive, teeming with bees, can be separated into two boxes. One half will hold the queen and a young, already mated queen can be put in the other half, to make two hives from one. By the time the flowers bloom, the new queens will be laying eggs, filling each hive with young worker bees. The beekeepers family will then migrate with them to their summer location. Adapted from America's Beekeepers: Hives for Hire by Alan Mairson, National Geographic. | Bees keep honey for themselves in the bottom of the hive. | entailment |
id_5829 | Taking Wing To eke out a full-time living from their honeybees, about half the nations 2,000 commercial beekeepers pull up stakes each spring, migrating north to find more flowers for their bees. Besides turning floral nectar into honey, these hardworking insects also pollinate crops for farmers -for a fee. As autumn approaches, the beekeepers pack up their hives and go south, scrambling for pollination contracts in hot spots like Californias fertile Central Valley. Of the 2,000 commercial beekeepers in the United States about half migrate This pays off in two ways Moving north in the summer and south in the winter lets bees work a longer blooming season, making more honey and money for their keepers. Second, beekeepers can carry their hives to farmers who need bees to pollinate their crops. Every spring a migratory beekeeper in California may move up to 160 million bees toRreading flowering fields in Minnesota and every winter his family may haul the hives back to California, where farmers will rent the bees to pollinate almond and cherry trees. Migratory beekeeping is nothing new. The ancient Egyptians moved clay hives, probably on rafts, down the Nile to follow the bloom and nectar flow as it moved toward Cairo. In the 1880s North American beekeepers experimented with the same idea, moving bees on barges along the Mississippi and on waterways in Florida, but their lighter, wooden hives kept falling into the water. Other keepers tried the railroad and horse- drawn wagons, but that didnt prove practical. Not until the 1920s when cars and trucks became affordable and roads improved, did migratory beekeeping begin to catch on. For the Californian beekeeper, the pollination season begins in February. At this time, the beehives are in particular demand by farmers who have almond groves; they need two hives an acre. For the three-week long bloom, beekeepers can hire out their hives for $32 each. Its a bonanza for the bees too. Most people consider almond honey too bitter to eat so the bees get to keep it for themselves. By early March it is time to move the bees. It can take up to seven nights to pack the 4,000 or so hives that a beekeeper may own. These are not moved in the middle of the day because too many of the bees would end up homeless. But at night, the hives are stacked onto wooden pallets, back-to-back in sets of four, and lifted onto a truck. It is not necessary to wear gloves or a beekeepers veil because the hives are not being opened and the bees should remain relatively quiet. Just in case some are still lively, bees can be pacified with a few puffs of smoke blown into each hives narrow entrance. In their new location, the beekeeper will pay the farmer to allow his bees to feed in such places as orange groves. The honey produced here is fragrant and sweet and can be sold by the beekeepers. To encourage the bees to produce as much honey as possible during this period, the beekeepers open the hives and stack extra boxes called supers on top. These temporary hive extensions contain frames of empty comb for the bees to fill with honey. In the brood chamber below, the bees will stash honey to eat later. To prevent the queen from crawling up to the top and laying eggs, a screen can be inserted between the brood chamber and the supers. Three weeks later the honey can be gathered. Foul smelling chemicals are often used to irritate the bees and drive them down into the hives bottom boxes, leaving the honey- filled supers more or less bee free. These can then be pulled off the hive. They are heavy with honey and may weigh up to 90 pounds each. The supers are taken to a warehouse. In the extracting room, the frames are lilted out and lowered into an uncapper where rotating blades shave away the wax that covers each cell. The uncapped frames are put in a carousel that sits on the bottom of a large stainless steel drum. The carousel is filled to capacity with 72 frames. A switch is flipped and the frames begin to whirl at 300 revolutions per minute; centrifugal force throws the honey out of the combs. Finally the honey is poured into barrels for shipment. After this, approximately a quarter of the hives weakened by disease, mites, or an ageing or dead queen, will have to be replaced. To create new colonies, a healthy double hive, teeming with bees, can be separated into two boxes. One half will hold the queen and a young, already mated queen can be put in the other half, to make two hives from one. By the time the flowers bloom, the new queens will be laying eggs, filling each hive with young worker bees. The beekeepers family will then migrate with them to their summer location. Adapted from America's Beekeepers: Hives for Hire by Alan Mairson, National Geographic. | First attempts at migratory beekeeping in America were unsuccessful. | entailment |
id_5830 | Taking Wing To eke out a full-time living from their honeybees, about half the nations 2,000 commercial beekeepers pull up stakes each spring, migrating north to find more flowers for their bees. Besides turning floral nectar into honey, these hardworking insects also pollinate crops for farmers -for a fee. As autumn approaches, the beekeepers pack up their hives and go south, scrambling for pollination contracts in hot spots like Californias fertile Central Valley. Of the 2,000 commercial beekeepers in the United States about half migrate This pays off in two ways Moving north in the summer and south in the winter lets bees work a longer blooming season, making more honey and money for their keepers. Second, beekeepers can carry their hives to farmers who need bees to pollinate their crops. Every spring a migratory beekeeper in California may move up to 160 million bees toRreading flowering fields in Minnesota and every winter his family may haul the hives back to California, where farmers will rent the bees to pollinate almond and cherry trees. Migratory beekeeping is nothing new. The ancient Egyptians moved clay hives, probably on rafts, down the Nile to follow the bloom and nectar flow as it moved toward Cairo. In the 1880s North American beekeepers experimented with the same idea, moving bees on barges along the Mississippi and on waterways in Florida, but their lighter, wooden hives kept falling into the water. Other keepers tried the railroad and horse- drawn wagons, but that didnt prove practical. Not until the 1920s when cars and trucks became affordable and roads improved, did migratory beekeeping begin to catch on. For the Californian beekeeper, the pollination season begins in February. At this time, the beehives are in particular demand by farmers who have almond groves; they need two hives an acre. For the three-week long bloom, beekeepers can hire out their hives for $32 each. Its a bonanza for the bees too. Most people consider almond honey too bitter to eat so the bees get to keep it for themselves. By early March it is time to move the bees. It can take up to seven nights to pack the 4,000 or so hives that a beekeeper may own. These are not moved in the middle of the day because too many of the bees would end up homeless. But at night, the hives are stacked onto wooden pallets, back-to-back in sets of four, and lifted onto a truck. It is not necessary to wear gloves or a beekeepers veil because the hives are not being opened and the bees should remain relatively quiet. Just in case some are still lively, bees can be pacified with a few puffs of smoke blown into each hives narrow entrance. In their new location, the beekeeper will pay the farmer to allow his bees to feed in such places as orange groves. The honey produced here is fragrant and sweet and can be sold by the beekeepers. To encourage the bees to produce as much honey as possible during this period, the beekeepers open the hives and stack extra boxes called supers on top. These temporary hive extensions contain frames of empty comb for the bees to fill with honey. In the brood chamber below, the bees will stash honey to eat later. To prevent the queen from crawling up to the top and laying eggs, a screen can be inserted between the brood chamber and the supers. Three weeks later the honey can be gathered. Foul smelling chemicals are often used to irritate the bees and drive them down into the hives bottom boxes, leaving the honey- filled supers more or less bee free. These can then be pulled off the hive. They are heavy with honey and may weigh up to 90 pounds each. The supers are taken to a warehouse. In the extracting room, the frames are lilted out and lowered into an uncapper where rotating blades shave away the wax that covers each cell. The uncapped frames are put in a carousel that sits on the bottom of a large stainless steel drum. The carousel is filled to capacity with 72 frames. A switch is flipped and the frames begin to whirl at 300 revolutions per minute; centrifugal force throws the honey out of the combs. Finally the honey is poured into barrels for shipment. After this, approximately a quarter of the hives weakened by disease, mites, or an ageing or dead queen, will have to be replaced. To create new colonies, a healthy double hive, teeming with bees, can be separated into two boxes. One half will hold the queen and a young, already mated queen can be put in the other half, to make two hives from one. By the time the flowers bloom, the new queens will be laying eggs, filling each hive with young worker bees. The beekeepers family will then migrate with them to their summer location. Adapted from America's Beekeepers: Hives for Hire by Alan Mairson, National Geographic. | The Egyptians keep bees on the banks of the Nile. | neutral |
id_5831 | Taking recreational drugs in the privacy of your own home should be no one else's business but your own and yet the government has made it illegal. Millions of law- abiding citizens have used recreational drugs. Studies suggest that some 10 million people have used recreational drugs at some stage of their lives and 2 million use them on a regular and long-term basis. The studies suggest that it's not just young people who are recreational drug users either; most studies find that close to half the long-term users are aged over 24 years of age. Recreational drugs are classified into three categories according to the level of harm they cause. Penalties for possession of class C drugs, the lowest classification, include imprisonment for up to two years and an unlimited fine. Dealing in these drugs can result in imprisonment for up to 14 years. Possession of class A drugs can result in seven years imprisonment. Cannabis, perhaps the most commonly used recreational drug, is soon to be reclassified as class B from its current classification of class C. | Dealing in all classes of these drugs can result in imprisonment for up to 14 years. | neutral |
id_5832 | Taking recreational drugs in the privacy of your own home should be no one else's business but your own and yet the government has made it illegal. Millions of law- abiding citizens have used recreational drugs. Studies suggest that some 10 million people have used recreational drugs at some stage of their lives and 2 million use them on a regular and long-term basis. The studies suggest that it's not just young people who are recreational drug users either; most studies find that close to half the long-term users are aged over 24 years of age. Recreational drugs are classified into three categories according to the level of harm they cause. Penalties for possession of class C drugs, the lowest classification, include imprisonment for up to two years and an unlimited fine. Dealing in these drugs can result in imprisonment for up to 14 years. Possession of class A drugs can result in seven years imprisonment. Cannabis, perhaps the most commonly used recreational drug, is soon to be reclassified as class B from its current classification of class C. | The author of the passage does not agree that it should be illegal to use recreational drugs in the privacy of your own home. | entailment |
id_5833 | Taking recreational drugs in the privacy of your own home should be no one else's business but your own and yet the government has made it illegal. Millions of law- abiding citizens have used recreational drugs. Studies suggest that some 10 million people have used recreational drugs at some stage of their lives and 2 million use them on a regular and long-term basis. The studies suggest that it's not just young people who are recreational drug users either; most studies find that close to half the long-term users are aged over 24 years of age. Recreational drugs are classified into three categories according to the level of harm they cause. Penalties for possession of class C drugs, the lowest classification, include imprisonment for up to two years and an unlimited fine. Dealing in these drugs can result in imprisonment for up to 14 years. Possession of class A drugs can result in seven years imprisonment. Cannabis, perhaps the most commonly used recreational drug, is soon to be reclassified as class B from its current classification of class C. | It is not true to say that people who use recreational drugs are law-abiding citizens. | entailment |
id_5834 | Taking the train across town is quicker than taking the bus. Taking the bus across town is slower than driving a car. | Taking the train across town is quicker than driving a car. | neutral |
id_5835 | Talking rot Despite its name, dry rot is anything but dry; it needs water to grow. It is caused by the fungus Serpula lacrymans, which colonizes damp wood in the form of red-brown fruit bodies. Wood consists of cellulose and lignin, and the fungus metabolizes the cellulose to its sugar components and eventually to carbon dioxide and water, which the fungus soaks up. The affected timber takes on a dull brown appearance, dries up and rapidly loses mechanical strength. Dry rot can threaten the structure of a building because it can spread beyond its source to penetrate the walls and brickwork. In the short term, timber affected with dry rot can be removed and the adjacent wood treated with a chemical fungicide. However, prevention is better than cure, and dry rot will not grow in an environment with less than 20 per cent moisture. Wet rot is more common in buildings than dry rot but is a far less serious problem because it cannot spread into the brickwork. Like dry rot, wet rot cannot grow in dry wood. Both dry and wet rot can usually be traced to a distinct source of rainwater ingress into a building, for example broken tiles, guttering or brickwork. Painting timbers with primer and top coat can stop water from penetrating wood, thereby preventing the germination of wood rot spores. However, an intact paint surface can mask fungal penetration that may have entered the wood at an exposed surface, for example where the timber is embedded in wet brickwork. The presence of dry rot can be confirmed by probing with a screwdriver, when the timber will easily give way, and also by tapping with a hammer, when it will sound hollow. | Dry rot can occur only in environments that have a high percentage of moisture. | contradiction |
id_5836 | Talking rot Despite its name, dry rot is anything but dry; it needs water to grow. It is caused by the fungus Serpula lacrymans, which colonizes damp wood in the form of red-brown fruit bodies. Wood consists of cellulose and lignin, and the fungus metabolizes the cellulose to its sugar components and eventually to carbon dioxide and water, which the fungus soaks up. The affected timber takes on a dull brown appearance, dries up and rapidly loses mechanical strength. Dry rot can threaten the structure of a building because it can spread beyond its source to penetrate the walls and brickwork. In the short term, timber affected with dry rot can be removed and the adjacent wood treated with a chemical fungicide. However, prevention is better than cure, and dry rot will not grow in an environment with less than 20 per cent moisture. Wet rot is more common in buildings than dry rot but is a far less serious problem because it cannot spread into the brickwork. Like dry rot, wet rot cannot grow in dry wood. Both dry and wet rot can usually be traced to a distinct source of rainwater ingress into a building, for example broken tiles, guttering or brickwork. Painting timbers with primer and top coat can stop water from penetrating wood, thereby preventing the germination of wood rot spores. However, an intact paint surface can mask fungal penetration that may have entered the wood at an exposed surface, for example where the timber is embedded in wet brickwork. The presence of dry rot can be confirmed by probing with a screwdriver, when the timber will easily give way, and also by tapping with a hammer, when it will sound hollow. | The normal water content of wood is less than 20 per cent. | entailment |
id_5837 | Talking rot Despite its name, dry rot is anything but dry; it needs water to grow. It is caused by the fungus Serpula lacrymans, which colonizes damp wood in the form of red-brown fruit bodies. Wood consists of cellulose and lignin, and the fungus metabolizes the cellulose to its sugar components and eventually to carbon dioxide and water, which the fungus soaks up. The affected timber takes on a dull brown appearance, dries up and rapidly loses mechanical strength. Dry rot can threaten the structure of a building because it can spread beyond its source to penetrate the walls and brickwork. In the short term, timber affected with dry rot can be removed and the adjacent wood treated with a chemical fungicide. However, prevention is better than cure, and dry rot will not grow in an environment with less than 20 per cent moisture. Wet rot is more common in buildings than dry rot but is a far less serious problem because it cannot spread into the brickwork. Like dry rot, wet rot cannot grow in dry wood. Both dry and wet rot can usually be traced to a distinct source of rainwater ingress into a building, for example broken tiles, guttering or brickwork. Painting timbers with primer and top coat can stop water from penetrating wood, thereby preventing the germination of wood rot spores. However, an intact paint surface can mask fungal penetration that may have entered the wood at an exposed surface, for example where the timber is embedded in wet brickwork. The presence of dry rot can be confirmed by probing with a screwdriver, when the timber will easily give way, and also by tapping with a hammer, when it will sound hollow. | Wood with an intact paint surface is free of wood rot. | neutral |
id_5838 | Talking rot Despite its name, dry rot is anything but dry; it needs water to grow. It is caused by the fungus Serpula lacrymans, which colonizes damp wood in the form of red-brown fruit bodies. Wood consists of cellulose and lignin, and the fungus metabolizes the cellulose to its sugar components and eventually to carbon dioxide and water, which the fungus soaks up. The affected timber takes on a dull brown appearance, dries up and rapidly loses mechanical strength. Dry rot can threaten the structure of a building because it can spread beyond its source to penetrate the walls and brickwork. In the short term, timber affected with dry rot can be removed and the adjacent wood treated with a chemical fungicide. However, prevention is better than cure, and dry rot will not grow in an environment with less than 20 per cent moisture. Wet rot is more common in buildings than dry rot but is a far less serious problem because it cannot spread into the brickwork. Like dry rot, wet rot cannot grow in dry wood. Both dry and wet rot can usually be traced to a distinct source of rainwater ingress into a building, for example broken tiles, guttering or brickwork. Painting timbers with primer and top coat can stop water from penetrating wood, thereby preventing the germination of wood rot spores. However, an intact paint surface can mask fungal penetration that may have entered the wood at an exposed surface, for example where the timber is embedded in wet brickwork. The presence of dry rot can be confirmed by probing with a screwdriver, when the timber will easily give way, and also by tapping with a hammer, when it will sound hollow. | Both dry and wet rot are caused by the fungus Serpula lacrymans. | neutral |
id_5839 | Tax choice, also known as taxpayer sovereignty is the principle that taxpayers should be entitled to choose where and how their taxes are spent. It is claimed that taxpayers will react more positively when allowed to allocate some, or all of their taxes to specific services, which may also increase positive political involvement. An example of Tax choice legislation was the 2007 Opt out of Iraq War Act in the USA, which would have allowed taxpayers to designate money towards particular social programs. | Tax payers have been found to react more positively when they have tax choice. | neutral |
id_5840 | Tax choice, also known as taxpayer sovereignty is the principle that taxpayers should be entitled to choose where and how their taxes are spent. It is claimed that taxpayers will react more positively when allowed to allocate some, or all of their taxes to specific services, which may also increase positive political involvement. An example of Tax choice legislation was the 2007 Opt out of Iraq War Act in the USA, which would have allowed taxpayers to designate money towards particular social programs. | Tax choice allows taxpayers to allot more money to education and healthcare. | entailment |
id_5841 | Tax choice, also known as taxpayer sovereignty is the principle that taxpayers should be entitled to choose where and how their taxes are spent. It is claimed that taxpayers will react more positively when allowed to allocate some, or all of their taxes to specific services, which may also increase positive political involvement. An example of Tax choice legislation was the 2007 Opt out of Iraq War Act in the USA, which would have allowed taxpayers to designate money towards particular social programs. | Tax choice would increase funding for particular social programs. | neutral |
id_5842 | Tea and Industrial Revolution A. Alan Macfarlane thinks he could rewrite history. The professor of anthropological science at King's College, Cambridge has, like other historians, spent decades trying to understand the enigma of the Industrial Revolution. Why did this particular important event - the world- changing birth of industry - happen in Britain? And why did it happen at the end of the 18th century? B. Macfarlane compares the question to a puzzle. He claims that there were about 20 different factors and all of them needed to be present before the revolution could happen. The chief conditions are to be found in history textbooks. For industry to 'take off', there needed to be the technology and power to drive factories, large urban populations to provide cheap labour easy transport to move goods around, an affluent middle-class willing to buy mass-produced objects, a market-driven economy, and a political system that allowed this to happen. While this was the case for England, other nations, such as Japan, Holland and France also met some of these criteria. All these factors must have been necessary but not sufficient to cause the revolution. Holland had everything except coal, while China also had many of these factors. C. Most historians, however, are convinced that one or two missing factors are needed to solve the puzzle. The missing factors, he proposes, are to be found in every kitchen cupboard. Tea and beer, two of the nation's favorite drinks, drove the revolution. Tannin, the active ingredient in tea, and hops, used in making beer, both contain antiseptic properties. This -plus the fact that both are made with boiled water-helped prevent epidemics of waterborne diseases, such as dysentery, in densely populated urban areas. The theoryinitially sounds eccentric but his explanation of the detective work that went into his deduction and the fact his case has been strengthened by a favorable appraisal of his research by Roy Porter (distinguished medical historian) the skepticism gives way to wary admiration. D. Historians had noticed one interesting factor around the mid-18 th century that required explanation. Between about 165D and 1740, the population was static. But then there was a burst in population. The infant mortality rate halved in the space of 20 years, and this happened in both rural areas and cities, and across all classes. Four possible causes have been suggested. There could have been a sudden change in the viruses and bacteria present at that time, but this is unlikely. Was there a revolution in medical science? But this was a century before Lister introduced antiseptic surgery. Was there a change in environmental conditions? There were improvements in agriculture that wiped out malaria, but these were small gains. Sanitation did not become widespread until the 19th century. The only option left was food. But the height and weight statistics show a decline. So the food got worse. Efforts to explain this sudden reduction in child deaths appeared to draw a blank. E. This population burst seemed to happen at just the right time to provide labor for the Industrial Revolution. But why? When the Industrial Revolution started, it was economically efficient to have people crowded together forming towns and cities. But with crowded living conditions comes disease, particularly from human waste. Some research in the historical records revealed that there was a change in the incidence of waterborne disease at that time, the English were protected by the strong antibacterial agent in hops, which were added to make beer last. But in the late 17th century a tax was introduced on malt. The poor turned to water and gin, and in the 1720s the mortality rate began to rise again. F. Macfarlane looked to Japan, which was also developing large cities about the same time, and also had no sanitation. Waterborne diseases in the Japanese population were far fewer than those in Britain. Could it be the prevalence of tea in their culture? That was when Macfarlane thought about the role of tea in Britain. The history of tea in Britain provided an extraordinary coincidence of dates. Tea was relatively expensive until Britain started direct hade with Chinain the early 18 th century. By the 1740s, about the time that infant mortality was falling, the drink was common. Macfarlane guesses that the fact that water had to be boiled, together with the stomach-purifying properties of tea so eloquently described in Buddhist texts, meant that the breast milk provided by mothers was healthier than it had ever been. No other European nation drank tea so often as the British, which, by Macfarlane's logic, pushed the other nations out of the race for the Industrial Revolution. G. But, if tea is a factor in the puzzle, why didn't this cause an industrial revolution in Japan? Macfarlane notes that in the 17th century, Japan had large cities, high literacy rates and even a futures market. However, Japan decided against a work-based revolution, by giving up labor-saving devices even animals, to avoid putting people out of work. Astonishingly, the nation that we now think of as one of the most technologically advanced, entered the 19th century having almost abandoned the wheel. While Britain was undergoing the Industrial Revolution, Macfarlane notes wryly, Japan was undergoing an industrious one. | Tea and beer contributed to protect people from waterborne disease. | entailment |
id_5843 | Tea and Industrial Revolution A. Alan Macfarlane thinks he could rewrite history. The professor of anthropological science at King's College, Cambridge has, like other historians, spent decades trying to understand the enigma of the Industrial Revolution. Why did this particular important event - the world- changing birth of industry - happen in Britain? And why did it happen at the end of the 18th century? B. Macfarlane compares the question to a puzzle. He claims that there were about 20 different factors and all of them needed to be present before the revolution could happen. The chief conditions are to be found in history textbooks. For industry to 'take off', there needed to be the technology and power to drive factories, large urban populations to provide cheap labour easy transport to move goods around, an affluent middle-class willing to buy mass-produced objects, a market-driven economy, and a political system that allowed this to happen. While this was the case for England, other nations, such as Japan, Holland and France also met some of these criteria. All these factors must have been necessary but not sufficient to cause the revolution. Holland had everything except coal, while China also had many of these factors. C. Most historians, however, are convinced that one or two missing factors are needed to solve the puzzle. The missing factors, he proposes, are to be found in every kitchen cupboard. Tea and beer, two of the nation's favorite drinks, drove the revolution. Tannin, the active ingredient in tea, and hops, used in making beer, both contain antiseptic properties. This -plus the fact that both are made with boiled water-helped prevent epidemics of waterborne diseases, such as dysentery, in densely populated urban areas. The theoryinitially sounds eccentric but his explanation of the detective work that went into his deduction and the fact his case has been strengthened by a favorable appraisal of his research by Roy Porter (distinguished medical historian) the skepticism gives way to wary admiration. D. Historians had noticed one interesting factor around the mid-18 th century that required explanation. Between about 165D and 1740, the population was static. But then there was a burst in population. The infant mortality rate halved in the space of 20 years, and this happened in both rural areas and cities, and across all classes. Four possible causes have been suggested. There could have been a sudden change in the viruses and bacteria present at that time, but this is unlikely. Was there a revolution in medical science? But this was a century before Lister introduced antiseptic surgery. Was there a change in environmental conditions? There were improvements in agriculture that wiped out malaria, but these were small gains. Sanitation did not become widespread until the 19th century. The only option left was food. But the height and weight statistics show a decline. So the food got worse. Efforts to explain this sudden reduction in child deaths appeared to draw a blank. E. This population burst seemed to happen at just the right time to provide labor for the Industrial Revolution. But why? When the Industrial Revolution started, it was economically efficient to have people crowded together forming towns and cities. But with crowded living conditions comes disease, particularly from human waste. Some research in the historical records revealed that there was a change in the incidence of waterborne disease at that time, the English were protected by the strong antibacterial agent in hops, which were added to make beer last. But in the late 17th century a tax was introduced on malt. The poor turned to water and gin, and in the 1720s the mortality rate began to rise again. F. Macfarlane looked to Japan, which was also developing large cities about the same time, and also had no sanitation. Waterborne diseases in the Japanese population were far fewer than those in Britain. Could it be the prevalence of tea in their culture? That was when Macfarlane thought about the role of tea in Britain. The history of tea in Britain provided an extraordinary coincidence of dates. Tea was relatively expensive until Britain started direct hade with Chinain the early 18 th century. By the 1740s, about the time that infant mortality was falling, the drink was common. Macfarlane guesses that the fact that water had to be boiled, together with the stomach-purifying properties of tea so eloquently described in Buddhist texts, meant that the breast milk provided by mothers was healthier than it had ever been. No other European nation drank tea so often as the British, which, by Macfarlane's logic, pushed the other nations out of the race for the Industrial Revolution. G. But, if tea is a factor in the puzzle, why didn't this cause an industrial revolution in Japan? Macfarlane notes that in the 17th century, Japan had large cities, high literacy rates and even a futures market. However, Japan decided against a work-based revolution, by giving up labor-saving devices even animals, to avoid putting people out of work. Astonishingly, the nation that we now think of as one of the most technologically advanced, entered the 19th century having almost abandoned the wheel. While Britain was undergoing the Industrial Revolution, Macfarlane notes wryly, Japan was undergoing an industrious one. | Tax on malt indirectly affected the increase of population in late 17 th century | entailment |
id_5844 | Tea and Industrial Revolution A. Alan Macfarlane thinks he could rewrite history. The professor of anthropological science at King's College, Cambridge has, like other historians, spent decades trying to understand the enigma of the Industrial Revolution. Why did this particular important event - the world- changing birth of industry - happen in Britain? And why did it happen at the end of the 18th century? B. Macfarlane compares the question to a puzzle. He claims that there were about 20 different factors and all of them needed to be present before the revolution could happen. The chief conditions are to be found in history textbooks. For industry to 'take off', there needed to be the technology and power to drive factories, large urban populations to provide cheap labour easy transport to move goods around, an affluent middle-class willing to buy mass-produced objects, a market-driven economy, and a political system that allowed this to happen. While this was the case for England, other nations, such as Japan, Holland and France also met some of these criteria. All these factors must have been necessary but not sufficient to cause the revolution. Holland had everything except coal, while China also had many of these factors. C. Most historians, however, are convinced that one or two missing factors are needed to solve the puzzle. The missing factors, he proposes, are to be found in every kitchen cupboard. Tea and beer, two of the nation's favorite drinks, drove the revolution. Tannin, the active ingredient in tea, and hops, used in making beer, both contain antiseptic properties. This -plus the fact that both are made with boiled water-helped prevent epidemics of waterborne diseases, such as dysentery, in densely populated urban areas. The theoryinitially sounds eccentric but his explanation of the detective work that went into his deduction and the fact his case has been strengthened by a favorable appraisal of his research by Roy Porter (distinguished medical historian) the skepticism gives way to wary admiration. D. Historians had noticed one interesting factor around the mid-18 th century that required explanation. Between about 165D and 1740, the population was static. But then there was a burst in population. The infant mortality rate halved in the space of 20 years, and this happened in both rural areas and cities, and across all classes. Four possible causes have been suggested. There could have been a sudden change in the viruses and bacteria present at that time, but this is unlikely. Was there a revolution in medical science? But this was a century before Lister introduced antiseptic surgery. Was there a change in environmental conditions? There were improvements in agriculture that wiped out malaria, but these were small gains. Sanitation did not become widespread until the 19th century. The only option left was food. But the height and weight statistics show a decline. So the food got worse. Efforts to explain this sudden reduction in child deaths appeared to draw a blank. E. This population burst seemed to happen at just the right time to provide labor for the Industrial Revolution. But why? When the Industrial Revolution started, it was economically efficient to have people crowded together forming towns and cities. But with crowded living conditions comes disease, particularly from human waste. Some research in the historical records revealed that there was a change in the incidence of waterborne disease at that time, the English were protected by the strong antibacterial agent in hops, which were added to make beer last. But in the late 17th century a tax was introduced on malt. The poor turned to water and gin, and in the 1720s the mortality rate began to rise again. F. Macfarlane looked to Japan, which was also developing large cities about the same time, and also had no sanitation. Waterborne diseases in the Japanese population were far fewer than those in Britain. Could it be the prevalence of tea in their culture? That was when Macfarlane thought about the role of tea in Britain. The history of tea in Britain provided an extraordinary coincidence of dates. Tea was relatively expensive until Britain started direct hade with Chinain the early 18 th century. By the 1740s, about the time that infant mortality was falling, the drink was common. Macfarlane guesses that the fact that water had to be boiled, together with the stomach-purifying properties of tea so eloquently described in Buddhist texts, meant that the breast milk provided by mothers was healthier than it had ever been. No other European nation drank tea so often as the British, which, by Macfarlane's logic, pushed the other nations out of the race for the Industrial Revolution. G. But, if tea is a factor in the puzzle, why didn't this cause an industrial revolution in Japan? Macfarlane notes that in the 17th century, Japan had large cities, high literacy rates and even a futures market. However, Japan decided against a work-based revolution, by giving up labor-saving devices even animals, to avoid putting people out of work. Astonishingly, the nation that we now think of as one of the most technologically advanced, entered the 19th century having almost abandoned the wheel. While Britain was undergoing the Industrial Revolution, Macfarlane notes wryly, Japan was undergoing an industrious one. | Roy Porter disagreed with the proposed theory about the missing factors | contradiction |
id_5845 | Tea and Industrial Revolution A. Alan Macfarlane thinks he could rewrite history. The professor of anthropological science at King's College, Cambridge has, like other historians, spent decades trying to understand the enigma of the Industrial Revolution. Why did this particular important event - the world- changing birth of industry - happen in Britain? And why did it happen at the end of the 18th century? B. Macfarlane compares the question to a puzzle. He claims that there were about 20 different factors and all of them needed to be present before the revolution could happen. The chief conditions are to be found in history textbooks. For industry to 'take off', there needed to be the technology and power to drive factories, large urban populations to provide cheap labour easy transport to move goods around, an affluent middle-class willing to buy mass-produced objects, a market-driven economy, and a political system that allowed this to happen. While this was the case for England, other nations, such as Japan, Holland and France also met some of these criteria. All these factors must have been necessary but not sufficient to cause the revolution. Holland had everything except coal, while China also had many of these factors. C. Most historians, however, are convinced that one or two missing factors are needed to solve the puzzle. The missing factors, he proposes, are to be found in every kitchen cupboard. Tea and beer, two of the nation's favorite drinks, drove the revolution. Tannin, the active ingredient in tea, and hops, used in making beer, both contain antiseptic properties. This -plus the fact that both are made with boiled water-helped prevent epidemics of waterborne diseases, such as dysentery, in densely populated urban areas. The theoryinitially sounds eccentric but his explanation of the detective work that went into his deduction and the fact his case has been strengthened by a favorable appraisal of his research by Roy Porter (distinguished medical historian) the skepticism gives way to wary admiration. D. Historians had noticed one interesting factor around the mid-18 th century that required explanation. Between about 165D and 1740, the population was static. But then there was a burst in population. The infant mortality rate halved in the space of 20 years, and this happened in both rural areas and cities, and across all classes. Four possible causes have been suggested. There could have been a sudden change in the viruses and bacteria present at that time, but this is unlikely. Was there a revolution in medical science? But this was a century before Lister introduced antiseptic surgery. Was there a change in environmental conditions? There were improvements in agriculture that wiped out malaria, but these were small gains. Sanitation did not become widespread until the 19th century. The only option left was food. But the height and weight statistics show a decline. So the food got worse. Efforts to explain this sudden reduction in child deaths appeared to draw a blank. E. This population burst seemed to happen at just the right time to provide labor for the Industrial Revolution. But why? When the Industrial Revolution started, it was economically efficient to have people crowded together forming towns and cities. But with crowded living conditions comes disease, particularly from human waste. Some research in the historical records revealed that there was a change in the incidence of waterborne disease at that time, the English were protected by the strong antibacterial agent in hops, which were added to make beer last. But in the late 17th century a tax was introduced on malt. The poor turned to water and gin, and in the 1720s the mortality rate began to rise again. F. Macfarlane looked to Japan, which was also developing large cities about the same time, and also had no sanitation. Waterborne diseases in the Japanese population were far fewer than those in Britain. Could it be the prevalence of tea in their culture? That was when Macfarlane thought about the role of tea in Britain. The history of tea in Britain provided an extraordinary coincidence of dates. Tea was relatively expensive until Britain started direct hade with Chinain the early 18 th century. By the 1740s, about the time that infant mortality was falling, the drink was common. Macfarlane guesses that the fact that water had to be boiled, together with the stomach-purifying properties of tea so eloquently described in Buddhist texts, meant that the breast milk provided by mothers was healthier than it had ever been. No other European nation drank tea so often as the British, which, by Macfarlane's logic, pushed the other nations out of the race for the Industrial Revolution. G. But, if tea is a factor in the puzzle, why didn't this cause an industrial revolution in Japan? Macfarlane notes that in the 17th century, Japan had large cities, high literacy rates and even a futures market. However, Japan decided against a work-based revolution, by giving up labor-saving devices even animals, to avoid putting people out of work. Astonishingly, the nation that we now think of as one of the most technologically advanced, entered the 19th century having almost abandoned the wheel. While Britain was undergoing the Industrial Revolution, Macfarlane notes wryly, Japan was undergoing an industrious one. | The reason of lower child deaths is fully explained by food. | contradiction |
id_5846 | Tea and Industrial Revolution A. Alan Macfarlane thinks he could rewrite history. The professor of anthropological science at King's College, Cambridge has, like other historians, spent decades trying to understand the enigma of the Industrial Revolution. Why did this particular important event - the world- changing birth of industry - happen in Britain? And why did it happen at the end of the 18th century? B. Macfarlane compares the question to a puzzle. He claims that there were about 20 different factors and all of them needed to be present before the revolution could happen. The chief conditions are to be found in history textbooks. For industry to 'take off', there needed to be the technology and power to drive factories, large urban populations to provide cheap labour easy transport to move goods around, an affluent middle-class willing to buy mass-produced objects, a market-driven economy, and a political system that allowed this to happen. While this was the case for England, other nations, such as Japan, Holland and France also met some of these criteria. All these factors must have been necessary but not sufficient to cause the revolution. Holland had everything except coal, while China also had many of these factors. C. Most historians, however, are convinced that one or two missing factors are needed to solve the puzzle. The missing factors, he proposes, are to be found in every kitchen cupboard. Tea and beer, two of the nation's favorite drinks, drove the revolution. Tannin, the active ingredient in tea, and hops, used in making beer, both contain antiseptic properties. This -plus the fact that both are made with boiled water-helped prevent epidemics of waterborne diseases, such as dysentery, in densely populated urban areas. The theoryinitially sounds eccentric but his explanation of the detective work that went into his deduction and the fact his case has been strengthened by a favorable appraisal of his research by Roy Porter (distinguished medical historian) the skepticism gives way to wary admiration. D. Historians had noticed one interesting factor around the mid-18 th century that required explanation. Between about 165D and 1740, the population was static. But then there was a burst in population. The infant mortality rate halved in the space of 20 years, and this happened in both rural areas and cities, and across all classes. Four possible causes have been suggested. There could have been a sudden change in the viruses and bacteria present at that time, but this is unlikely. Was there a revolution in medical science? But this was a century before Lister introduced antiseptic surgery. Was there a change in environmental conditions? There were improvements in agriculture that wiped out malaria, but these were small gains. Sanitation did not become widespread until the 19th century. The only option left was food. But the height and weight statistics show a decline. So the food got worse. Efforts to explain this sudden reduction in child deaths appeared to draw a blank. E. This population burst seemed to happen at just the right time to provide labor for the Industrial Revolution. But why? When the Industrial Revolution started, it was economically efficient to have people crowded together forming towns and cities. But with crowded living conditions comes disease, particularly from human waste. Some research in the historical records revealed that there was a change in the incidence of waterborne disease at that time, the English were protected by the strong antibacterial agent in hops, which were added to make beer last. But in the late 17th century a tax was introduced on malt. The poor turned to water and gin, and in the 1720s the mortality rate began to rise again. F. Macfarlane looked to Japan, which was also developing large cities about the same time, and also had no sanitation. Waterborne diseases in the Japanese population were far fewer than those in Britain. Could it be the prevalence of tea in their culture? That was when Macfarlane thought about the role of tea in Britain. The history of tea in Britain provided an extraordinary coincidence of dates. Tea was relatively expensive until Britain started direct hade with Chinain the early 18 th century. By the 1740s, about the time that infant mortality was falling, the drink was common. Macfarlane guesses that the fact that water had to be boiled, together with the stomach-purifying properties of tea so eloquently described in Buddhist texts, meant that the breast milk provided by mothers was healthier than it had ever been. No other European nation drank tea so often as the British, which, by Macfarlane's logic, pushed the other nations out of the race for the Industrial Revolution. G. But, if tea is a factor in the puzzle, why didn't this cause an industrial revolution in Japan? Macfarlane notes that in the 17th century, Japan had large cities, high literacy rates and even a futures market. However, Japan decided against a work-based revolution, by giving up labor-saving devices even animals, to avoid putting people out of work. Astonishingly, the nation that we now think of as one of the most technologically advanced, entered the 19th century having almost abandoned the wheel. While Britain was undergoing the Industrial Revolution, Macfarlane notes wryly, Japan was undergoing an industrious one. | The British made beer by themselves. | neutral |
id_5847 | Tea and Industrial Revolution A. Alan Macfarlane thinks he could rewrite history. The professor of anthropological science at King's College, Cambridge has, like other historians, spent decades trying to understand the enigma of the Industrial Revolution. Why did this particular important event - the world- changing birth of industry - happen in Britain? And why did it happen at the end of the 18th century? B. Macfarlane compares the question to a puzzle. He claims that there were about 20 different factors and all of them needed to be present before the revolution could happen. The chief conditions are to be found in history textbooks. For industry to 'take off', there needed to be the technology and power to drive factories, large urban populations to provide cheap labour easy transport to move goods around, an affluent middle-class willing to buy mass-produced objects, a market-driven economy, and a political system that allowed this to happen. While this was the case for England, other nations, such as Japan, Holland and France also met some of these criteria. All these factors must have been necessary but not sufficient to cause the revolution. Holland had everything except coal, while China also had many of these factors. C. Most historians, however, are convinced that one or two missing factors are needed to solve the puzzle. The missing factors, he proposes, are to be found in every kitchen cupboard. Tea and beer, two of the nation's favorite drinks, drove the revolution. Tannin, the active ingredient in tea, and hops, used in making beer, both contain antiseptic properties. This -plus the fact that both are made with boiled water-helped prevent epidemics of waterborne diseases, such as dysentery, in densely populated urban areas. The theoryinitially sounds eccentric but his explanation of the detective work that went into his deduction and the fact his case has been strengthened by a favorable appraisal of his research by Roy Porter (distinguished medical historian) the skepticism gives way to wary admiration. D. Historians had noticed one interesting factor around the mid-18 th century that required explanation. Between about 165D and 1740, the population was static. But then there was a burst in population. The infant mortality rate halved in the space of 20 years, and this happened in both rural areas and cities, and across all classes. Four possible causes have been suggested. There could have been a sudden change in the viruses and bacteria present at that time, but this is unlikely. Was there a revolution in medical science? But this was a century before Lister introduced antiseptic surgery. Was there a change in environmental conditions? There were improvements in agriculture that wiped out malaria, but these were small gains. Sanitation did not become widespread until the 19th century. The only option left was food. But the height and weight statistics show a decline. So the food got worse. Efforts to explain this sudden reduction in child deaths appeared to draw a blank. E. This population burst seemed to happen at just the right time to provide labor for the Industrial Revolution. But why? When the Industrial Revolution started, it was economically efficient to have people crowded together forming towns and cities. But with crowded living conditions comes disease, particularly from human waste. Some research in the historical records revealed that there was a change in the incidence of waterborne disease at that time, the English were protected by the strong antibacterial agent in hops, which were added to make beer last. But in the late 17th century a tax was introduced on malt. The poor turned to water and gin, and in the 1720s the mortality rate began to rise again. F. Macfarlane looked to Japan, which was also developing large cities about the same time, and also had no sanitation. Waterborne diseases in the Japanese population were far fewer than those in Britain. Could it be the prevalence of tea in their culture? That was when Macfarlane thought about the role of tea in Britain. The history of tea in Britain provided an extraordinary coincidence of dates. Tea was relatively expensive until Britain started direct hade with Chinain the early 18 th century. By the 1740s, about the time that infant mortality was falling, the drink was common. Macfarlane guesses that the fact that water had to be boiled, together with the stomach-purifying properties of tea so eloquently described in Buddhist texts, meant that the breast milk provided by mothers was healthier than it had ever been. No other European nation drank tea so often as the British, which, by Macfarlane's logic, pushed the other nations out of the race for the Industrial Revolution. G. But, if tea is a factor in the puzzle, why didn't this cause an industrial revolution in Japan? Macfarlane notes that in the 17th century, Japan had large cities, high literacy rates and even a futures market. However, Japan decided against a work-based revolution, by giving up labor-saving devices even animals, to avoid putting people out of work. Astonishingly, the nation that we now think of as one of the most technologically advanced, entered the 19th century having almost abandoned the wheel. While Britain was undergoing the Industrial Revolution, Macfarlane notes wryly, Japan was undergoing an industrious one. | The industrialization did not happen in China because of its inefficient railway transportation. | neutral |
id_5848 | Tea and the Industrial Revolution A Cambridge professor says that a change in drinking babits was the reason for the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Anjana Abuja reports Alan Macfarlane, professor of anthropological science at Kings College, Cambridge has, like other historians, spent decades wrestling with the enigma of the Industrial Revolution. Why did this particular Big Bang the world-changing birth of industry-happen in Britain? And why did it strike at the end of the 18th century? Macfarlane compares the puzzle to a combination lock. There are about 20 different factors and all of them need to be present before the revolution can happen, he says. For industry to take off, there needs to be the technology and power to drive factories, large urban populations to provide cheap labour, easy transport to move goods around, an affluent middle-class willing to buy mass-produced objects, a market- driven economy and a political system that allows this to happen. While this was the case for England, other nations, such as Japan, the Netherlands and France also met some of these criteria but were not industrialising. All these factors must have been necessary. But not sufficient to cause the revolution, says Macfarlane. After all, Holland had everything except coal while China also had many of these factors. Most historians are convinced there are one or two missing factors that you need to open the lock. The missing factors, he proposes, are to be found in almost even kitchen cupboard. Tea and beer, two of the nations favourite drinks, fuelled the revolution. The antiseptic properties of tannin, the active ingredient in tea, and of hops in beer plus the fact that both are made with boiled water allowed urban communities to flourish at close quarters without succumbing to water-borne diseases such as dysentery. The theory sounds eccentric but once he starts to explain the detective work that went into his deduction, the scepticism gives way to wary admiration. Macfarlanes case has been strengthened by support from notable quarters Roy Porter, the distinguished medical historian, recently wrote a favourable appraisal of his research. Macfarlane had wondered for a long time how the Industrial Revolution came about. Historians had alighted on one interesting factor around the mid-18th century that required explanation. Between about 1650 and 1740, the population in Britain was static. But then there was a burst in population growth. Macfarlane says: The infant mortality rate halved in the space of 20 years, and this happened in both rural areas and cities, and across all classes. People suggested four possible causes. Was there a sudden change in the viruses and bacteria around? Unlikely. Was there a revolution in medical science? But this was a century before Listers revolution*. Was there a change in environmental conditions? There were improvements in agriculture that wiped out malaria, but these were small gains. Sanitation did not become widespread until the 19th century. The only option left is food. But the height and weight statistics show a decline. So the food must have got worse. Efforts to explain this sudden reduction in child deaths appeared to draw a blank. This population burst seemed to happen at just the right time to provide labour for the Industrial Revolution. When you start moving towards an industrial revolution, it is economically efficient to have people living close together, says Macfarlane. But then you get disease, particularly from human waste. Some digging around in historical records revealed that there was a change in the incidence of water- borne disease at that time, especially dysentery. Macfarlane deduced that whatever the British were drinking must have been important in regulating disease. He says, We drank beer. For a long time, the English were protected by the strong antibacterial agent in hops, which were added to help preserve the beer. But in the late 17th century a tax was introduced on malt, the basic ingredient of beer. The poor turned to water and gin and in the 1720s the mortality rate began to rise again. Then it suddenly dropped again. What caused this? Macfarlane looked to Japan, which was also developing large cities about the same time, and also had no sanitation. Water-borne diseases had a much looser grip on the Japanese population than those in Britain. 52Could it be the prevalence of tea in their culture? Macfarlane then noted that the history of tea in Britain provided an extraordinary coincidence of dates. Tea was relatively expensive until Britain started a direct dipper trade with China in the early 18th century. By the 1740s, about the time that infant mortality was dipping, the drink was common. Macfarlane guessed that the fact that water had to be boiled, together with the stomach-purifying properties of tea meant that the breast milk provided by mothers was healthier than it had ever been. No other European nation sipped tea like the British, which, by Macfarlanes logic, pushed these other countries out of contention for the revolution. But, if tea is a factor in the combination lock, why didnt Japan forge ahead in a tea-soaked industrial revolution of its own? Macfarlane notes that even though 17th-century Japan had large cities, high literacy rates, even a futures market, it had turned its back on the essence of any work-based revolution by giving up labour-saving devices such as animals, afraid that they would put people out of work. So, the nation that we now think of as one of the most technologically advanced entered the 19th century having abandoned the wheel | After 1740, there was a reduction in population in Britain. | contradiction |
id_5849 | Tea and the Industrial Revolution A Cambridge professor says that a change in drinking babits was the reason for the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Anjana Abuja reports Alan Macfarlane, professor of anthropological science at Kings College, Cambridge has, like other historians, spent decades wrestling with the enigma of the Industrial Revolution. Why did this particular Big Bang the world-changing birth of industry-happen in Britain? And why did it strike at the end of the 18th century? Macfarlane compares the puzzle to a combination lock. There are about 20 different factors and all of them need to be present before the revolution can happen, he says. For industry to take off, there needs to be the technology and power to drive factories, large urban populations to provide cheap labour, easy transport to move goods around, an affluent middle-class willing to buy mass-produced objects, a market- driven economy and a political system that allows this to happen. While this was the case for England, other nations, such as Japan, the Netherlands and France also met some of these criteria but were not industrialising. All these factors must have been necessary. But not sufficient to cause the revolution, says Macfarlane. After all, Holland had everything except coal while China also had many of these factors. Most historians are convinced there are one or two missing factors that you need to open the lock. The missing factors, he proposes, are to be found in almost even kitchen cupboard. Tea and beer, two of the nations favourite drinks, fuelled the revolution. The antiseptic properties of tannin, the active ingredient in tea, and of hops in beer plus the fact that both are made with boiled water allowed urban communities to flourish at close quarters without succumbing to water-borne diseases such as dysentery. The theory sounds eccentric but once he starts to explain the detective work that went into his deduction, the scepticism gives way to wary admiration. Macfarlanes case has been strengthened by support from notable quarters Roy Porter, the distinguished medical historian, recently wrote a favourable appraisal of his research. Macfarlane had wondered for a long time how the Industrial Revolution came about. Historians had alighted on one interesting factor around the mid-18th century that required explanation. Between about 1650 and 1740, the population in Britain was static. But then there was a burst in population growth. Macfarlane says: The infant mortality rate halved in the space of 20 years, and this happened in both rural areas and cities, and across all classes. People suggested four possible causes. Was there a sudden change in the viruses and bacteria around? Unlikely. Was there a revolution in medical science? But this was a century before Listers revolution*. Was there a change in environmental conditions? There were improvements in agriculture that wiped out malaria, but these were small gains. Sanitation did not become widespread until the 19th century. The only option left is food. But the height and weight statistics show a decline. So the food must have got worse. Efforts to explain this sudden reduction in child deaths appeared to draw a blank. This population burst seemed to happen at just the right time to provide labour for the Industrial Revolution. When you start moving towards an industrial revolution, it is economically efficient to have people living close together, says Macfarlane. But then you get disease, particularly from human waste. Some digging around in historical records revealed that there was a change in the incidence of water- borne disease at that time, especially dysentery. Macfarlane deduced that whatever the British were drinking must have been important in regulating disease. He says, We drank beer. For a long time, the English were protected by the strong antibacterial agent in hops, which were added to help preserve the beer. But in the late 17th century a tax was introduced on malt, the basic ingredient of beer. The poor turned to water and gin and in the 1720s the mortality rate began to rise again. Then it suddenly dropped again. What caused this? Macfarlane looked to Japan, which was also developing large cities about the same time, and also had no sanitation. Water-borne diseases had a much looser grip on the Japanese population than those in Britain. 52Could it be the prevalence of tea in their culture? Macfarlane then noted that the history of tea in Britain provided an extraordinary coincidence of dates. Tea was relatively expensive until Britain started a direct dipper trade with China in the early 18th century. By the 1740s, about the time that infant mortality was dipping, the drink was common. Macfarlane guessed that the fact that water had to be boiled, together with the stomach-purifying properties of tea meant that the breast milk provided by mothers was healthier than it had ever been. No other European nation sipped tea like the British, which, by Macfarlanes logic, pushed these other countries out of contention for the revolution. But, if tea is a factor in the combination lock, why didnt Japan forge ahead in a tea-soaked industrial revolution of its own? Macfarlane notes that even though 17th-century Japan had large cities, high literacy rates, even a futures market, it had turned its back on the essence of any work-based revolution by giving up labour-saving devices such as animals, afraid that they would put people out of work. So, the nation that we now think of as one of the most technologically advanced entered the 19th century having abandoned the wheel | Chinas transport system was not suitable for industry in the 18th century. | neutral |
id_5850 | Tea and the Industrial Revolution A Cambridge professor says that a change in drinking babits was the reason for the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Anjana Abuja reports Alan Macfarlane, professor of anthropological science at Kings College, Cambridge has, like other historians, spent decades wrestling with the enigma of the Industrial Revolution. Why did this particular Big Bang the world-changing birth of industry-happen in Britain? And why did it strike at the end of the 18th century? Macfarlane compares the puzzle to a combination lock. There are about 20 different factors and all of them need to be present before the revolution can happen, he says. For industry to take off, there needs to be the technology and power to drive factories, large urban populations to provide cheap labour, easy transport to move goods around, an affluent middle-class willing to buy mass-produced objects, a market- driven economy and a political system that allows this to happen. While this was the case for England, other nations, such as Japan, the Netherlands and France also met some of these criteria but were not industrialising. All these factors must have been necessary. But not sufficient to cause the revolution, says Macfarlane. After all, Holland had everything except coal while China also had many of these factors. Most historians are convinced there are one or two missing factors that you need to open the lock. The missing factors, he proposes, are to be found in almost even kitchen cupboard. Tea and beer, two of the nations favourite drinks, fuelled the revolution. The antiseptic properties of tannin, the active ingredient in tea, and of hops in beer plus the fact that both are made with boiled water allowed urban communities to flourish at close quarters without succumbing to water-borne diseases such as dysentery. The theory sounds eccentric but once he starts to explain the detective work that went into his deduction, the scepticism gives way to wary admiration. Macfarlanes case has been strengthened by support from notable quarters Roy Porter, the distinguished medical historian, recently wrote a favourable appraisal of his research. Macfarlane had wondered for a long time how the Industrial Revolution came about. Historians had alighted on one interesting factor around the mid-18th century that required explanation. Between about 1650 and 1740, the population in Britain was static. But then there was a burst in population growth. Macfarlane says: The infant mortality rate halved in the space of 20 years, and this happened in both rural areas and cities, and across all classes. People suggested four possible causes. Was there a sudden change in the viruses and bacteria around? Unlikely. Was there a revolution in medical science? But this was a century before Listers revolution*. Was there a change in environmental conditions? There were improvements in agriculture that wiped out malaria, but these were small gains. Sanitation did not become widespread until the 19th century. The only option left is food. But the height and weight statistics show a decline. So the food must have got worse. Efforts to explain this sudden reduction in child deaths appeared to draw a blank. This population burst seemed to happen at just the right time to provide labour for the Industrial Revolution. When you start moving towards an industrial revolution, it is economically efficient to have people living close together, says Macfarlane. But then you get disease, particularly from human waste. Some digging around in historical records revealed that there was a change in the incidence of water- borne disease at that time, especially dysentery. Macfarlane deduced that whatever the British were drinking must have been important in regulating disease. He says, We drank beer. For a long time, the English were protected by the strong antibacterial agent in hops, which were added to help preserve the beer. But in the late 17th century a tax was introduced on malt, the basic ingredient of beer. The poor turned to water and gin and in the 1720s the mortality rate began to rise again. Then it suddenly dropped again. What caused this? Macfarlane looked to Japan, which was also developing large cities about the same time, and also had no sanitation. Water-borne diseases had a much looser grip on the Japanese population than those in Britain. 52Could it be the prevalence of tea in their culture? Macfarlane then noted that the history of tea in Britain provided an extraordinary coincidence of dates. Tea was relatively expensive until Britain started a direct dipper trade with China in the early 18th century. By the 1740s, about the time that infant mortality was dipping, the drink was common. Macfarlane guessed that the fact that water had to be boiled, together with the stomach-purifying properties of tea meant that the breast milk provided by mothers was healthier than it had ever been. No other European nation sipped tea like the British, which, by Macfarlanes logic, pushed these other countries out of contention for the revolution. But, if tea is a factor in the combination lock, why didnt Japan forge ahead in a tea-soaked industrial revolution of its own? Macfarlane notes that even though 17th-century Japan had large cities, high literacy rates, even a futures market, it had turned its back on the essence of any work-based revolution by giving up labour-saving devices such as animals, afraid that they would put people out of work. So, the nation that we now think of as one of the most technologically advanced entered the 19th century having abandoned the wheel | The tax on malt indirectly caused a rise in the death rate. | entailment |
id_5851 | Tea and the Industrial Revolution A Cambridge professor says that a change in drinking babits was the reason for the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Anjana Abuja reports Alan Macfarlane, professor of anthropological science at Kings College, Cambridge has, like other historians, spent decades wrestling with the enigma of the Industrial Revolution. Why did this particular Big Bang the world-changing birth of industry-happen in Britain? And why did it strike at the end of the 18th century? Macfarlane compares the puzzle to a combination lock. There are about 20 different factors and all of them need to be present before the revolution can happen, he says. For industry to take off, there needs to be the technology and power to drive factories, large urban populations to provide cheap labour, easy transport to move goods around, an affluent middle-class willing to buy mass-produced objects, a market- driven economy and a political system that allows this to happen. While this was the case for England, other nations, such as Japan, the Netherlands and France also met some of these criteria but were not industrialising. All these factors must have been necessary. But not sufficient to cause the revolution, says Macfarlane. After all, Holland had everything except coal while China also had many of these factors. Most historians are convinced there are one or two missing factors that you need to open the lock. The missing factors, he proposes, are to be found in almost even kitchen cupboard. Tea and beer, two of the nations favourite drinks, fuelled the revolution. The antiseptic properties of tannin, the active ingredient in tea, and of hops in beer plus the fact that both are made with boiled water allowed urban communities to flourish at close quarters without succumbing to water-borne diseases such as dysentery. The theory sounds eccentric but once he starts to explain the detective work that went into his deduction, the scepticism gives way to wary admiration. Macfarlanes case has been strengthened by support from notable quarters Roy Porter, the distinguished medical historian, recently wrote a favourable appraisal of his research. Macfarlane had wondered for a long time how the Industrial Revolution came about. Historians had alighted on one interesting factor around the mid-18th century that required explanation. Between about 1650 and 1740, the population in Britain was static. But then there was a burst in population growth. Macfarlane says: The infant mortality rate halved in the space of 20 years, and this happened in both rural areas and cities, and across all classes. People suggested four possible causes. Was there a sudden change in the viruses and bacteria around? Unlikely. Was there a revolution in medical science? But this was a century before Listers revolution*. Was there a change in environmental conditions? There were improvements in agriculture that wiped out malaria, but these were small gains. Sanitation did not become widespread until the 19th century. The only option left is food. But the height and weight statistics show a decline. So the food must have got worse. Efforts to explain this sudden reduction in child deaths appeared to draw a blank. This population burst seemed to happen at just the right time to provide labour for the Industrial Revolution. When you start moving towards an industrial revolution, it is economically efficient to have people living close together, says Macfarlane. But then you get disease, particularly from human waste. Some digging around in historical records revealed that there was a change in the incidence of water- borne disease at that time, especially dysentery. Macfarlane deduced that whatever the British were drinking must have been important in regulating disease. He says, We drank beer. For a long time, the English were protected by the strong antibacterial agent in hops, which were added to help preserve the beer. But in the late 17th century a tax was introduced on malt, the basic ingredient of beer. The poor turned to water and gin and in the 1720s the mortality rate began to rise again. Then it suddenly dropped again. What caused this? Macfarlane looked to Japan, which was also developing large cities about the same time, and also had no sanitation. Water-borne diseases had a much looser grip on the Japanese population than those in Britain. 52Could it be the prevalence of tea in their culture? Macfarlane then noted that the history of tea in Britain provided an extraordinary coincidence of dates. Tea was relatively expensive until Britain started a direct dipper trade with China in the early 18th century. By the 1740s, about the time that infant mortality was dipping, the drink was common. Macfarlane guessed that the fact that water had to be boiled, together with the stomach-purifying properties of tea meant that the breast milk provided by mothers was healthier than it had ever been. No other European nation sipped tea like the British, which, by Macfarlanes logic, pushed these other countries out of contention for the revolution. But, if tea is a factor in the combination lock, why didnt Japan forge ahead in a tea-soaked industrial revolution of its own? Macfarlane notes that even though 17th-century Japan had large cities, high literacy rates, even a futures market, it had turned its back on the essence of any work-based revolution by giving up labour-saving devices such as animals, afraid that they would put people out of work. So, the nation that we now think of as one of the most technologically advanced entered the 19th century having abandoned the wheel | Tea and beer both helped to prevent dysentery in Britain. | entailment |
id_5852 | Tea and the Industrial Revolution A Cambridge professor says that a change in drinking babits was the reason for the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Anjana Abuja reports Alan Macfarlane, professor of anthropological science at Kings College, Cambridge has, like other historians, spent decades wrestling with the enigma of the Industrial Revolution. Why did this particular Big Bang the world-changing birth of industry-happen in Britain? And why did it strike at the end of the 18th century? Macfarlane compares the puzzle to a combination lock. There are about 20 different factors and all of them need to be present before the revolution can happen, he says. For industry to take off, there needs to be the technology and power to drive factories, large urban populations to provide cheap labour, easy transport to move goods around, an affluent middle-class willing to buy mass-produced objects, a market- driven economy and a political system that allows this to happen. While this was the case for England, other nations, such as Japan, the Netherlands and France also met some of these criteria but were not industrialising. All these factors must have been necessary. But not sufficient to cause the revolution, says Macfarlane. After all, Holland had everything except coal while China also had many of these factors. Most historians are convinced there are one or two missing factors that you need to open the lock. The missing factors, he proposes, are to be found in almost even kitchen cupboard. Tea and beer, two of the nations favourite drinks, fuelled the revolution. The antiseptic properties of tannin, the active ingredient in tea, and of hops in beer plus the fact that both are made with boiled water allowed urban communities to flourish at close quarters without succumbing to water-borne diseases such as dysentery. The theory sounds eccentric but once he starts to explain the detective work that went into his deduction, the scepticism gives way to wary admiration. Macfarlanes case has been strengthened by support from notable quarters Roy Porter, the distinguished medical historian, recently wrote a favourable appraisal of his research. Macfarlane had wondered for a long time how the Industrial Revolution came about. Historians had alighted on one interesting factor around the mid-18th century that required explanation. Between about 1650 and 1740, the population in Britain was static. But then there was a burst in population growth. Macfarlane says: The infant mortality rate halved in the space of 20 years, and this happened in both rural areas and cities, and across all classes. People suggested four possible causes. Was there a sudden change in the viruses and bacteria around? Unlikely. Was there a revolution in medical science? But this was a century before Listers revolution*. Was there a change in environmental conditions? There were improvements in agriculture that wiped out malaria, but these were small gains. Sanitation did not become widespread until the 19th century. The only option left is food. But the height and weight statistics show a decline. So the food must have got worse. Efforts to explain this sudden reduction in child deaths appeared to draw a blank. This population burst seemed to happen at just the right time to provide labour for the Industrial Revolution. When you start moving towards an industrial revolution, it is economically efficient to have people living close together, says Macfarlane. But then you get disease, particularly from human waste. Some digging around in historical records revealed that there was a change in the incidence of water- borne disease at that time, especially dysentery. Macfarlane deduced that whatever the British were drinking must have been important in regulating disease. He says, We drank beer. For a long time, the English were protected by the strong antibacterial agent in hops, which were added to help preserve the beer. But in the late 17th century a tax was introduced on malt, the basic ingredient of beer. The poor turned to water and gin and in the 1720s the mortality rate began to rise again. Then it suddenly dropped again. What caused this? Macfarlane looked to Japan, which was also developing large cities about the same time, and also had no sanitation. Water-borne diseases had a much looser grip on the Japanese population than those in Britain. 52Could it be the prevalence of tea in their culture? Macfarlane then noted that the history of tea in Britain provided an extraordinary coincidence of dates. Tea was relatively expensive until Britain started a direct dipper trade with China in the early 18th century. By the 1740s, about the time that infant mortality was dipping, the drink was common. Macfarlane guessed that the fact that water had to be boiled, together with the stomach-purifying properties of tea meant that the breast milk provided by mothers was healthier than it had ever been. No other European nation sipped tea like the British, which, by Macfarlanes logic, pushed these other countries out of contention for the revolution. But, if tea is a factor in the combination lock, why didnt Japan forge ahead in a tea-soaked industrial revolution of its own? Macfarlane notes that even though 17th-century Japan had large cities, high literacy rates, even a futures market, it had turned its back on the essence of any work-based revolution by giving up labour-saving devices such as animals, afraid that they would put people out of work. So, the nation that we now think of as one of the most technologically advanced entered the 19th century having abandoned the wheel | Roy Porter disagrees with Professor Macfarlanes findings. | contradiction |
id_5853 | Tea and the Industrial Revolution A Cambridge professor says that a change in drinking babits was the reason for the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Anjana Abuja reports Alan Macfarlane, professor of anthropological science at Kings College, Cambridge has, like other historians, spent decades wrestling with the enigma of the Industrial Revolution. Why did this particular Big Bang the world-changing birth of industry-happen in Britain? And why did it strike at the end of the 18th century? Macfarlane compares the puzzle to a combination lock. There are about 20 different factors and all of them need to be present before the revolution can happen, he says. For industry to take off, there needs to be the technology and power to drive factories, large urban populations to provide cheap labour, easy transport to move goods around, an affluent middle-class willing to buy mass-produced objects, a market- driven economy and a political system that allows this to happen. While this was the case for England, other nations, such as Japan, the Netherlands and France also met some of these criteria but were not industrialising. All these factors must have been necessary. But not sufficient to cause the revolution, says Macfarlane. After all, Holland had everything except coal while China also had many of these factors. Most historians are convinced there are one or two missing factors that you need to open the lock. The missing factors, he proposes, are to be found in almost even kitchen cupboard. Tea and beer, two of the nations favourite drinks, fuelled the revolution. The antiseptic properties of tannin, the active ingredient in tea, and of hops in beer plus the fact that both are made with boiled water allowed urban communities to flourish at close quarters without succumbing to water-borne diseases such as dysentery. The theory sounds eccentric but once he starts to explain the detective work that went into his deduction, the scepticism gives way to wary admiration. Macfarlanes case has been strengthened by support from notable quarters Roy Porter, the distinguished medical historian, recently wrote a favourable appraisal of his research. Macfarlane had wondered for a long time how the Industrial Revolution came about. Historians had alighted on one interesting factor around the mid-18th century that required explanation. Between about 1650 and 1740, the population in Britain was static. But then there was a burst in population growth. Macfarlane says: The infant mortality rate halved in the space of 20 years, and this happened in both rural areas and cities, and across all classes. People suggested four possible causes. Was there a sudden change in the viruses and bacteria around? Unlikely. Was there a revolution in medical science? But this was a century before Listers revolution*. Was there a change in environmental conditions? There were improvements in agriculture that wiped out malaria, but these were small gains. Sanitation did not become widespread until the 19th century. The only option left is food. But the height and weight statistics show a decline. So the food must have got worse. Efforts to explain this sudden reduction in child deaths appeared to draw a blank. This population burst seemed to happen at just the right time to provide labour for the Industrial Revolution. When you start moving towards an industrial revolution, it is economically efficient to have people living close together, says Macfarlane. But then you get disease, particularly from human waste. Some digging around in historical records revealed that there was a change in the incidence of water- borne disease at that time, especially dysentery. Macfarlane deduced that whatever the British were drinking must have been important in regulating disease. He says, We drank beer. For a long time, the English were protected by the strong antibacterial agent in hops, which were added to help preserve the beer. But in the late 17th century a tax was introduced on malt, the basic ingredient of beer. The poor turned to water and gin and in the 1720s the mortality rate began to rise again. Then it suddenly dropped again. What caused this? Macfarlane looked to Japan, which was also developing large cities about the same time, and also had no sanitation. Water-borne diseases had a much looser grip on the Japanese population than those in Britain. 52Could it be the prevalence of tea in their culture? Macfarlane then noted that the history of tea in Britain provided an extraordinary coincidence of dates. Tea was relatively expensive until Britain started a direct dipper trade with China in the early 18th century. By the 1740s, about the time that infant mortality was dipping, the drink was common. Macfarlane guessed that the fact that water had to be boiled, together with the stomach-purifying properties of tea meant that the breast milk provided by mothers was healthier than it had ever been. No other European nation sipped tea like the British, which, by Macfarlanes logic, pushed these other countries out of contention for the revolution. But, if tea is a factor in the combination lock, why didnt Japan forge ahead in a tea-soaked industrial revolution of its own? Macfarlane notes that even though 17th-century Japan had large cities, high literacy rates, even a futures market, it had turned its back on the essence of any work-based revolution by giving up labour-saving devices such as animals, afraid that they would put people out of work. So, the nation that we now think of as one of the most technologically advanced entered the 19th century having abandoned the wheel | People in Britain used to make beer at home. | neutral |
id_5854 | Tea and the Industrial Revolution Cambridge professor says that a change in drinking babits was the reason for the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Anjana Abuja reports Alan Macfarlane, professor of anthropological science at Kings College, Cambridge, has, like other historians, spent decades wrestling with the enigma of the Industrial Revolution. Why did this particular Big Bang the world-changing birth of industry happen in Britain? And why did it strike at the end of the 18th century? Macfarlane compares the puzzle to a combination lock. There are about 20 different factors and all of them need to be present before the revolution can happen, he says. For industry to take off, there needs to be the technology and power to drive factories, large urban populations to provide cheap labour, easy transport to move goods around, an affluent middle-class willing to buy mass-produced objects, a market-driven economy and a political system that allows this to happen. While this was the case for England, other nations, such as Japan, the Netherlands and France also met some of these criteria but were not industrialising. All these factors must have been necessary but not sufficient to cause the revolution, says Macfarlane. After all, Holland had everything except coal while China also had many of these factors. Most historians are convinced there are one or two missing factors that you need to open the lock. The missing factors, he proposes, are to be found in almost even kitchen curpboard. Tea and beer, two of the nations favourite drinks, fuelled the revolution. The antiseptic properties of tannin, the active ingredient in tea, and of hops in beer plus the fact that both are made with boiled water allowed urban communities to flourish at close quarters without succumbing to water-borne diseases such as dysentery. The theory sounds eccentric but once he starts to explain the detective work that went into his deduction, the scepticism gives way to wary admiration. Macfarlanes case has been strengthened by support from notable quarters Roy Porter, the distinguished medical historian, recently wrote a favourable appraisal of his research. Macfarlane had wondered for a long time how the Industrial Revolution came about. Historians had alighted on one interesting factor around the mid-18th century that required explanation. Between about 1650 and 1740, the population in Britain was static. But then there was a burst in population growth. Macfarlane says: The infant mortality rate halved in the space of 20 years, and this happened in both rural areas and cities, and across all classes. People suggested four possible causes. Was there a sudden change in the viruses and bacteria around? Unlikely. Was there a revolution in medical science? But this was a century before Listers revolution*. Was there a change in environmental conditions? There were improvements in agriculture that wiped out malaria, but these were small gains. Sanitation did not become widespread until the 19th century. The only option left is food. But the height and weight statistics show a decline. So the food must have got worse. Efforts to explain this sudden reduction in child deaths appeared to draw a blank. This population burst seemed to happen at just the right time to provide labour for the Industrial Revolution. When you start moving towards an industrial revolution, it is economically efficient to have people living close together, says Macfarlane. But then you get disease, particularly from human waste. Some digging around in historical records revealed that there was a change in the incidence of water-borne disease at that time, especially dysentery. Macfarlane deduced that whatever the British were drinking must have been important in regulating disease. He says, We drank beer. For a long time, the English were protected by the strong antibacterial agent in hops, which were added to help preserve the beer. But in the late 17th century a tax was introduced on malt, the basic ingredient of beer. The poor turned to water and gin and in the 1720s the mortality rate began to rise again. Then it suddenly dropped again. What caused this? Macfarlane looked to Japan, which was also developing large cities about the same time, and also had no sanitation. Water-borne diseases had a much looser grip on the Japanese population than those in Britain. Could it be the prevalence of tea in their culture? Macfarlane then noted that the history of tea in Britain provided an extraordinary coincidence of dates. Tea was relatively expensive until Britain started a direct clipper trade with China in the early 18th century. By the 1740s, about the time that infant mortality was dipping, the drink was common. Macfarlane guessed that the fact that water had to be boiled, together with the stomach-purifying properties of tea meant that the breast milk provided by mothers was healthier than it had ever been. No other European nation sipped tea like the British, which, by Macfarlanes logic, pushed these other countries out of contention for the revolution. But, if tea is a factor in the combination lock, why didn't Japan forge ahead in a tea-soaked industrial revolution of its own? Macfarlane notes that even though 17th-century Japan had large cities, high literacy rates, even a futures market, it had turned its back on the essence of any work-based revolution by giving up labour-saving devices such as animals, afraid that they would put people out of work. So, the nation that we now think of as one of the most technologically advanced entered the 19th century having abandoned the wheel. *Joseph Lister was the first doctor to use antiseptic techniques during surgical operations to prevent infections. | Chinas transport system was not suitable for industry in the 18th century. | neutral |
id_5855 | Tea and the Industrial Revolution Cambridge professor says that a change in drinking babits was the reason for the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Anjana Abuja reports Alan Macfarlane, professor of anthropological science at Kings College, Cambridge, has, like other historians, spent decades wrestling with the enigma of the Industrial Revolution. Why did this particular Big Bang the world-changing birth of industry happen in Britain? And why did it strike at the end of the 18th century? Macfarlane compares the puzzle to a combination lock. There are about 20 different factors and all of them need to be present before the revolution can happen, he says. For industry to take off, there needs to be the technology and power to drive factories, large urban populations to provide cheap labour, easy transport to move goods around, an affluent middle-class willing to buy mass-produced objects, a market-driven economy and a political system that allows this to happen. While this was the case for England, other nations, such as Japan, the Netherlands and France also met some of these criteria but were not industrialising. All these factors must have been necessary but not sufficient to cause the revolution, says Macfarlane. After all, Holland had everything except coal while China also had many of these factors. Most historians are convinced there are one or two missing factors that you need to open the lock. The missing factors, he proposes, are to be found in almost even kitchen curpboard. Tea and beer, two of the nations favourite drinks, fuelled the revolution. The antiseptic properties of tannin, the active ingredient in tea, and of hops in beer plus the fact that both are made with boiled water allowed urban communities to flourish at close quarters without succumbing to water-borne diseases such as dysentery. The theory sounds eccentric but once he starts to explain the detective work that went into his deduction, the scepticism gives way to wary admiration. Macfarlanes case has been strengthened by support from notable quarters Roy Porter, the distinguished medical historian, recently wrote a favourable appraisal of his research. Macfarlane had wondered for a long time how the Industrial Revolution came about. Historians had alighted on one interesting factor around the mid-18th century that required explanation. Between about 1650 and 1740, the population in Britain was static. But then there was a burst in population growth. Macfarlane says: The infant mortality rate halved in the space of 20 years, and this happened in both rural areas and cities, and across all classes. People suggested four possible causes. Was there a sudden change in the viruses and bacteria around? Unlikely. Was there a revolution in medical science? But this was a century before Listers revolution*. Was there a change in environmental conditions? There were improvements in agriculture that wiped out malaria, but these were small gains. Sanitation did not become widespread until the 19th century. The only option left is food. But the height and weight statistics show a decline. So the food must have got worse. Efforts to explain this sudden reduction in child deaths appeared to draw a blank. This population burst seemed to happen at just the right time to provide labour for the Industrial Revolution. When you start moving towards an industrial revolution, it is economically efficient to have people living close together, says Macfarlane. But then you get disease, particularly from human waste. Some digging around in historical records revealed that there was a change in the incidence of water-borne disease at that time, especially dysentery. Macfarlane deduced that whatever the British were drinking must have been important in regulating disease. He says, We drank beer. For a long time, the English were protected by the strong antibacterial agent in hops, which were added to help preserve the beer. But in the late 17th century a tax was introduced on malt, the basic ingredient of beer. The poor turned to water and gin and in the 1720s the mortality rate began to rise again. Then it suddenly dropped again. What caused this? Macfarlane looked to Japan, which was also developing large cities about the same time, and also had no sanitation. Water-borne diseases had a much looser grip on the Japanese population than those in Britain. Could it be the prevalence of tea in their culture? Macfarlane then noted that the history of tea in Britain provided an extraordinary coincidence of dates. Tea was relatively expensive until Britain started a direct clipper trade with China in the early 18th century. By the 1740s, about the time that infant mortality was dipping, the drink was common. Macfarlane guessed that the fact that water had to be boiled, together with the stomach-purifying properties of tea meant that the breast milk provided by mothers was healthier than it had ever been. No other European nation sipped tea like the British, which, by Macfarlanes logic, pushed these other countries out of contention for the revolution. But, if tea is a factor in the combination lock, why didn't Japan forge ahead in a tea-soaked industrial revolution of its own? Macfarlane notes that even though 17th-century Japan had large cities, high literacy rates, even a futures market, it had turned its back on the essence of any work-based revolution by giving up labour-saving devices such as animals, afraid that they would put people out of work. So, the nation that we now think of as one of the most technologically advanced entered the 19th century having abandoned the wheel. *Joseph Lister was the first doctor to use antiseptic techniques during surgical operations to prevent infections. | The tax on malt indirectly caused a rise in the death rate. | entailment |
id_5856 | Tea and the Industrial Revolution Cambridge professor says that a change in drinking babits was the reason for the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Anjana Abuja reports Alan Macfarlane, professor of anthropological science at Kings College, Cambridge, has, like other historians, spent decades wrestling with the enigma of the Industrial Revolution. Why did this particular Big Bang the world-changing birth of industry happen in Britain? And why did it strike at the end of the 18th century? Macfarlane compares the puzzle to a combination lock. There are about 20 different factors and all of them need to be present before the revolution can happen, he says. For industry to take off, there needs to be the technology and power to drive factories, large urban populations to provide cheap labour, easy transport to move goods around, an affluent middle-class willing to buy mass-produced objects, a market-driven economy and a political system that allows this to happen. While this was the case for England, other nations, such as Japan, the Netherlands and France also met some of these criteria but were not industrialising. All these factors must have been necessary but not sufficient to cause the revolution, says Macfarlane. After all, Holland had everything except coal while China also had many of these factors. Most historians are convinced there are one or two missing factors that you need to open the lock. The missing factors, he proposes, are to be found in almost even kitchen curpboard. Tea and beer, two of the nations favourite drinks, fuelled the revolution. The antiseptic properties of tannin, the active ingredient in tea, and of hops in beer plus the fact that both are made with boiled water allowed urban communities to flourish at close quarters without succumbing to water-borne diseases such as dysentery. The theory sounds eccentric but once he starts to explain the detective work that went into his deduction, the scepticism gives way to wary admiration. Macfarlanes case has been strengthened by support from notable quarters Roy Porter, the distinguished medical historian, recently wrote a favourable appraisal of his research. Macfarlane had wondered for a long time how the Industrial Revolution came about. Historians had alighted on one interesting factor around the mid-18th century that required explanation. Between about 1650 and 1740, the population in Britain was static. But then there was a burst in population growth. Macfarlane says: The infant mortality rate halved in the space of 20 years, and this happened in both rural areas and cities, and across all classes. People suggested four possible causes. Was there a sudden change in the viruses and bacteria around? Unlikely. Was there a revolution in medical science? But this was a century before Listers revolution*. Was there a change in environmental conditions? There were improvements in agriculture that wiped out malaria, but these were small gains. Sanitation did not become widespread until the 19th century. The only option left is food. But the height and weight statistics show a decline. So the food must have got worse. Efforts to explain this sudden reduction in child deaths appeared to draw a blank. This population burst seemed to happen at just the right time to provide labour for the Industrial Revolution. When you start moving towards an industrial revolution, it is economically efficient to have people living close together, says Macfarlane. But then you get disease, particularly from human waste. Some digging around in historical records revealed that there was a change in the incidence of water-borne disease at that time, especially dysentery. Macfarlane deduced that whatever the British were drinking must have been important in regulating disease. He says, We drank beer. For a long time, the English were protected by the strong antibacterial agent in hops, which were added to help preserve the beer. But in the late 17th century a tax was introduced on malt, the basic ingredient of beer. The poor turned to water and gin and in the 1720s the mortality rate began to rise again. Then it suddenly dropped again. What caused this? Macfarlane looked to Japan, which was also developing large cities about the same time, and also had no sanitation. Water-borne diseases had a much looser grip on the Japanese population than those in Britain. Could it be the prevalence of tea in their culture? Macfarlane then noted that the history of tea in Britain provided an extraordinary coincidence of dates. Tea was relatively expensive until Britain started a direct clipper trade with China in the early 18th century. By the 1740s, about the time that infant mortality was dipping, the drink was common. Macfarlane guessed that the fact that water had to be boiled, together with the stomach-purifying properties of tea meant that the breast milk provided by mothers was healthier than it had ever been. No other European nation sipped tea like the British, which, by Macfarlanes logic, pushed these other countries out of contention for the revolution. But, if tea is a factor in the combination lock, why didn't Japan forge ahead in a tea-soaked industrial revolution of its own? Macfarlane notes that even though 17th-century Japan had large cities, high literacy rates, even a futures market, it had turned its back on the essence of any work-based revolution by giving up labour-saving devices such as animals, afraid that they would put people out of work. So, the nation that we now think of as one of the most technologically advanced entered the 19th century having abandoned the wheel. *Joseph Lister was the first doctor to use antiseptic techniques during surgical operations to prevent infections. | Tea and beer both helped to prevent dysentery in Britain. | entailment |
id_5857 | Tea and the Industrial Revolution Cambridge professor says that a change in drinking babits was the reason for the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Anjana Abuja reports Alan Macfarlane, professor of anthropological science at Kings College, Cambridge, has, like other historians, spent decades wrestling with the enigma of the Industrial Revolution. Why did this particular Big Bang the world-changing birth of industry happen in Britain? And why did it strike at the end of the 18th century? Macfarlane compares the puzzle to a combination lock. There are about 20 different factors and all of them need to be present before the revolution can happen, he says. For industry to take off, there needs to be the technology and power to drive factories, large urban populations to provide cheap labour, easy transport to move goods around, an affluent middle-class willing to buy mass-produced objects, a market-driven economy and a political system that allows this to happen. While this was the case for England, other nations, such as Japan, the Netherlands and France also met some of these criteria but were not industrialising. All these factors must have been necessary but not sufficient to cause the revolution, says Macfarlane. After all, Holland had everything except coal while China also had many of these factors. Most historians are convinced there are one or two missing factors that you need to open the lock. The missing factors, he proposes, are to be found in almost even kitchen curpboard. Tea and beer, two of the nations favourite drinks, fuelled the revolution. The antiseptic properties of tannin, the active ingredient in tea, and of hops in beer plus the fact that both are made with boiled water allowed urban communities to flourish at close quarters without succumbing to water-borne diseases such as dysentery. The theory sounds eccentric but once he starts to explain the detective work that went into his deduction, the scepticism gives way to wary admiration. Macfarlanes case has been strengthened by support from notable quarters Roy Porter, the distinguished medical historian, recently wrote a favourable appraisal of his research. Macfarlane had wondered for a long time how the Industrial Revolution came about. Historians had alighted on one interesting factor around the mid-18th century that required explanation. Between about 1650 and 1740, the population in Britain was static. But then there was a burst in population growth. Macfarlane says: The infant mortality rate halved in the space of 20 years, and this happened in both rural areas and cities, and across all classes. People suggested four possible causes. Was there a sudden change in the viruses and bacteria around? Unlikely. Was there a revolution in medical science? But this was a century before Listers revolution*. Was there a change in environmental conditions? There were improvements in agriculture that wiped out malaria, but these were small gains. Sanitation did not become widespread until the 19th century. The only option left is food. But the height and weight statistics show a decline. So the food must have got worse. Efforts to explain this sudden reduction in child deaths appeared to draw a blank. This population burst seemed to happen at just the right time to provide labour for the Industrial Revolution. When you start moving towards an industrial revolution, it is economically efficient to have people living close together, says Macfarlane. But then you get disease, particularly from human waste. Some digging around in historical records revealed that there was a change in the incidence of water-borne disease at that time, especially dysentery. Macfarlane deduced that whatever the British were drinking must have been important in regulating disease. He says, We drank beer. For a long time, the English were protected by the strong antibacterial agent in hops, which were added to help preserve the beer. But in the late 17th century a tax was introduced on malt, the basic ingredient of beer. The poor turned to water and gin and in the 1720s the mortality rate began to rise again. Then it suddenly dropped again. What caused this? Macfarlane looked to Japan, which was also developing large cities about the same time, and also had no sanitation. Water-borne diseases had a much looser grip on the Japanese population than those in Britain. Could it be the prevalence of tea in their culture? Macfarlane then noted that the history of tea in Britain provided an extraordinary coincidence of dates. Tea was relatively expensive until Britain started a direct clipper trade with China in the early 18th century. By the 1740s, about the time that infant mortality was dipping, the drink was common. Macfarlane guessed that the fact that water had to be boiled, together with the stomach-purifying properties of tea meant that the breast milk provided by mothers was healthier than it had ever been. No other European nation sipped tea like the British, which, by Macfarlanes logic, pushed these other countries out of contention for the revolution. But, if tea is a factor in the combination lock, why didn't Japan forge ahead in a tea-soaked industrial revolution of its own? Macfarlane notes that even though 17th-century Japan had large cities, high literacy rates, even a futures market, it had turned its back on the essence of any work-based revolution by giving up labour-saving devices such as animals, afraid that they would put people out of work. So, the nation that we now think of as one of the most technologically advanced entered the 19th century having abandoned the wheel. *Joseph Lister was the first doctor to use antiseptic techniques during surgical operations to prevent infections. | Roy Porter disagrees with Professor Macfarlanes findings. | contradiction |
id_5858 | Tea and the Industrial Revolution Cambridge professor says that a change in drinking babits was the reason for the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Anjana Abuja reports Alan Macfarlane, professor of anthropological science at Kings College, Cambridge, has, like other historians, spent decades wrestling with the enigma of the Industrial Revolution. Why did this particular Big Bang the world-changing birth of industry happen in Britain? And why did it strike at the end of the 18th century? Macfarlane compares the puzzle to a combination lock. There are about 20 different factors and all of them need to be present before the revolution can happen, he says. For industry to take off, there needs to be the technology and power to drive factories, large urban populations to provide cheap labour, easy transport to move goods around, an affluent middle-class willing to buy mass-produced objects, a market-driven economy and a political system that allows this to happen. While this was the case for England, other nations, such as Japan, the Netherlands and France also met some of these criteria but were not industrialising. All these factors must have been necessary but not sufficient to cause the revolution, says Macfarlane. After all, Holland had everything except coal while China also had many of these factors. Most historians are convinced there are one or two missing factors that you need to open the lock. The missing factors, he proposes, are to be found in almost even kitchen curpboard. Tea and beer, two of the nations favourite drinks, fuelled the revolution. The antiseptic properties of tannin, the active ingredient in tea, and of hops in beer plus the fact that both are made with boiled water allowed urban communities to flourish at close quarters without succumbing to water-borne diseases such as dysentery. The theory sounds eccentric but once he starts to explain the detective work that went into his deduction, the scepticism gives way to wary admiration. Macfarlanes case has been strengthened by support from notable quarters Roy Porter, the distinguished medical historian, recently wrote a favourable appraisal of his research. Macfarlane had wondered for a long time how the Industrial Revolution came about. Historians had alighted on one interesting factor around the mid-18th century that required explanation. Between about 1650 and 1740, the population in Britain was static. But then there was a burst in population growth. Macfarlane says: The infant mortality rate halved in the space of 20 years, and this happened in both rural areas and cities, and across all classes. People suggested four possible causes. Was there a sudden change in the viruses and bacteria around? Unlikely. Was there a revolution in medical science? But this was a century before Listers revolution*. Was there a change in environmental conditions? There were improvements in agriculture that wiped out malaria, but these were small gains. Sanitation did not become widespread until the 19th century. The only option left is food. But the height and weight statistics show a decline. So the food must have got worse. Efforts to explain this sudden reduction in child deaths appeared to draw a blank. This population burst seemed to happen at just the right time to provide labour for the Industrial Revolution. When you start moving towards an industrial revolution, it is economically efficient to have people living close together, says Macfarlane. But then you get disease, particularly from human waste. Some digging around in historical records revealed that there was a change in the incidence of water-borne disease at that time, especially dysentery. Macfarlane deduced that whatever the British were drinking must have been important in regulating disease. He says, We drank beer. For a long time, the English were protected by the strong antibacterial agent in hops, which were added to help preserve the beer. But in the late 17th century a tax was introduced on malt, the basic ingredient of beer. The poor turned to water and gin and in the 1720s the mortality rate began to rise again. Then it suddenly dropped again. What caused this? Macfarlane looked to Japan, which was also developing large cities about the same time, and also had no sanitation. Water-borne diseases had a much looser grip on the Japanese population than those in Britain. Could it be the prevalence of tea in their culture? Macfarlane then noted that the history of tea in Britain provided an extraordinary coincidence of dates. Tea was relatively expensive until Britain started a direct clipper trade with China in the early 18th century. By the 1740s, about the time that infant mortality was dipping, the drink was common. Macfarlane guessed that the fact that water had to be boiled, together with the stomach-purifying properties of tea meant that the breast milk provided by mothers was healthier than it had ever been. No other European nation sipped tea like the British, which, by Macfarlanes logic, pushed these other countries out of contention for the revolution. But, if tea is a factor in the combination lock, why didn't Japan forge ahead in a tea-soaked industrial revolution of its own? Macfarlane notes that even though 17th-century Japan had large cities, high literacy rates, even a futures market, it had turned its back on the essence of any work-based revolution by giving up labour-saving devices such as animals, afraid that they would put people out of work. So, the nation that we now think of as one of the most technologically advanced entered the 19th century having abandoned the wheel. *Joseph Lister was the first doctor to use antiseptic techniques during surgical operations to prevent infections. | After 1740, there was a reduction in population in Britain. | contradiction |
id_5859 | Tea and the Industrial Revolution Cambridge professor says that a change in drinking babits was the reason for the Industrial Revolution in Britain. Anjana Abuja reports Alan Macfarlane, professor of anthropological science at Kings College, Cambridge, has, like other historians, spent decades wrestling with the enigma of the Industrial Revolution. Why did this particular Big Bang the world-changing birth of industry happen in Britain? And why did it strike at the end of the 18th century? Macfarlane compares the puzzle to a combination lock. There are about 20 different factors and all of them need to be present before the revolution can happen, he says. For industry to take off, there needs to be the technology and power to drive factories, large urban populations to provide cheap labour, easy transport to move goods around, an affluent middle-class willing to buy mass-produced objects, a market-driven economy and a political system that allows this to happen. While this was the case for England, other nations, such as Japan, the Netherlands and France also met some of these criteria but were not industrialising. All these factors must have been necessary but not sufficient to cause the revolution, says Macfarlane. After all, Holland had everything except coal while China also had many of these factors. Most historians are convinced there are one or two missing factors that you need to open the lock. The missing factors, he proposes, are to be found in almost even kitchen curpboard. Tea and beer, two of the nations favourite drinks, fuelled the revolution. The antiseptic properties of tannin, the active ingredient in tea, and of hops in beer plus the fact that both are made with boiled water allowed urban communities to flourish at close quarters without succumbing to water-borne diseases such as dysentery. The theory sounds eccentric but once he starts to explain the detective work that went into his deduction, the scepticism gives way to wary admiration. Macfarlanes case has been strengthened by support from notable quarters Roy Porter, the distinguished medical historian, recently wrote a favourable appraisal of his research. Macfarlane had wondered for a long time how the Industrial Revolution came about. Historians had alighted on one interesting factor around the mid-18th century that required explanation. Between about 1650 and 1740, the population in Britain was static. But then there was a burst in population growth. Macfarlane says: The infant mortality rate halved in the space of 20 years, and this happened in both rural areas and cities, and across all classes. People suggested four possible causes. Was there a sudden change in the viruses and bacteria around? Unlikely. Was there a revolution in medical science? But this was a century before Listers revolution*. Was there a change in environmental conditions? There were improvements in agriculture that wiped out malaria, but these were small gains. Sanitation did not become widespread until the 19th century. The only option left is food. But the height and weight statistics show a decline. So the food must have got worse. Efforts to explain this sudden reduction in child deaths appeared to draw a blank. This population burst seemed to happen at just the right time to provide labour for the Industrial Revolution. When you start moving towards an industrial revolution, it is economically efficient to have people living close together, says Macfarlane. But then you get disease, particularly from human waste. Some digging around in historical records revealed that there was a change in the incidence of water-borne disease at that time, especially dysentery. Macfarlane deduced that whatever the British were drinking must have been important in regulating disease. He says, We drank beer. For a long time, the English were protected by the strong antibacterial agent in hops, which were added to help preserve the beer. But in the late 17th century a tax was introduced on malt, the basic ingredient of beer. The poor turned to water and gin and in the 1720s the mortality rate began to rise again. Then it suddenly dropped again. What caused this? Macfarlane looked to Japan, which was also developing large cities about the same time, and also had no sanitation. Water-borne diseases had a much looser grip on the Japanese population than those in Britain. Could it be the prevalence of tea in their culture? Macfarlane then noted that the history of tea in Britain provided an extraordinary coincidence of dates. Tea was relatively expensive until Britain started a direct clipper trade with China in the early 18th century. By the 1740s, about the time that infant mortality was dipping, the drink was common. Macfarlane guessed that the fact that water had to be boiled, together with the stomach-purifying properties of tea meant that the breast milk provided by mothers was healthier than it had ever been. No other European nation sipped tea like the British, which, by Macfarlanes logic, pushed these other countries out of contention for the revolution. But, if tea is a factor in the combination lock, why didn't Japan forge ahead in a tea-soaked industrial revolution of its own? Macfarlane notes that even though 17th-century Japan had large cities, high literacy rates, even a futures market, it had turned its back on the essence of any work-based revolution by giving up labour-saving devices such as animals, afraid that they would put people out of work. So, the nation that we now think of as one of the most technologically advanced entered the 19th century having abandoned the wheel. *Joseph Lister was the first doctor to use antiseptic techniques during surgical operations to prevent infections. | People in Britain used to make beer at home. | neutral |
id_5860 | Technology and business are having a harmonious relationship. Technological advances can be seen as benefitting companies in several ways; increasing communication, preparation and efficiency. An example of this is provided by tablet computers. Tablets allow for work to be completed remotely and with greater ease. Information, for presentations and so on, can be edited and ready by the time the worker reaches his destination. However, such technological advances mean that workers are completing ever longer hours, unable to leave work unfinished. This also applies to emails, Blackberries, mobiles and other forms of communication; meaning that we are unable to leave our work at work. In this way technology can be seen as placing an ever increasing burden on individuals and blurring the line between home life and work. | Technological advances can be beneficial to workers as it acts as an incentive to work harder. | neutral |
id_5861 | Technology and business are having a harmonious relationship. Technological advances can be seen as benefitting companies in several ways; increasing communication, preparation and efficiency. An example of this is provided by tablet computers. Tablets allow for work to be completed remotely and with greater ease. Information, for presentations and so on, can be edited and ready by the time the worker reaches his destination. However, such technological advances mean that workers are completing ever longer hours, unable to leave work unfinished. This also applies to emails, Blackberries, mobiles and other forms of communication; meaning that we are unable to leave our work at work. In this way technology can be seen as placing an ever increasing burden on individuals and blurring the line between home life and work. | Technological advances can be beneficial to businesses by increasing communication. | entailment |
id_5862 | Technology and business are having a harmonious relationship. Technological advances can be seen as benefitting companies in several ways; increasing communication, preparation and efficiency. An example of this is provided by tablet computers. Tablets allow for work to be completed remotely and with greater ease. Information, for presentations and so on, can be edited and ready by the time the worker reaches his destination. However, such technological advances mean that workers are completing ever longer hours, unable to leave work unfinished. This also applies to emails, Blackberries, mobiles and other forms of communication; meaning that we are unable to leave our work at work. In this way technology can be seen as placing an ever increasing burden on individuals and blurring the line between home life and work. | Technological advances can be beneficial to businesses allows business to monitor what staff are doing. | neutral |
id_5863 | Technology and business are having a harmonious relationship. Technological advances can be seen as benefitting companies in several ways; increasing communication, preparation and efficiency. An example of this is provided by tablet computers. Tablets allow for work to be completed remotely and with greater ease. Information, for presentations and so on, can be edited and ready by the time the worker reaches his destination. However, such technological advances mean that workers are completing ever longer hours, unable to leave work unfinished. This also applies to emails, Blackberries, mobiles and other forms of communication; meaning that we are unable to leave our work at work. In this way technology can be seen as placing an ever increasing burden on individuals and blurring the line between home life and work. | Technological advances can be detrimental to workers as it makes it easier to leave their work at work. | contradiction |
id_5864 | Technology, such as smart-phones and business software, are said to be making a marked difference to life of local people in Ghana. An example of this can be seen in Janga, in the North of Ghana. Jangas economy is predominantly dependant on the collection and export of Shea nuts, traditionally collected by the women of the community. Thanks to the introduction of smart phones, Shea nut collectors are now able to attach barcodes to each bag of nuts that they collect. Scanning these barcodes on smart-phones means that an individual can keep track of the delivery. The barcodes also identify which bags belong to whom, so that the collector receives the right price for their product, based on the amount of and the quality of nuts they collected. While this business model is simple, it endows local workers with more control and bargaining power. | Technology has enabled individual workers to keep in contact. | neutral |
id_5865 | Technology, such as smart-phones and business software, are said to be making a marked difference to life of local people in Ghana. An example of this can be seen in Janga, in the North of Ghana. Jangas economy is predominantly dependant on the collection and export of Shea nuts, traditionally collected by the women of the community. Thanks to the introduction of smart phones, Shea nut collectors are now able to attach barcodes to each bag of nuts that they collect. Scanning these barcodes on smart-phones means that an individual can keep track of the delivery. The barcodes also identify which bags belong to whom, so that the collector receives the right price for their product, based on the amount of and the quality of nuts they collected. While this business model is simple, it endows local workers with more control and bargaining power. | The business model is described in the passage complicated. | contradiction |
id_5866 | Technology, such as smart-phones and business software, are said to be making a marked difference to life of local people in Ghana. An example of this can be seen in Janga, in the North of Ghana. Jangas economy is predominantly dependant on the collection and export of Shea nuts, traditionally collected by the women of the community. Thanks to the introduction of smart phones, Shea nut collectors are now able to attach barcodes to each bag of nuts that they collect. Scanning these barcodes on smart-phones means that an individual can keep track of the delivery. The barcodes also identify which bags belong to whom, so that the collector receives the right price for their product, based on the amount of and the quality of nuts they collected. While this business model is simple, it endows local workers with more control and bargaining power. | The barcodes on each bag identifies which area the nuts came from. | neutral |
id_5867 | Technology, such as smart-phones and business software, are said to be making a marked difference to life of local people in Ghana. An example of this can be seen in Janga, in the North of Ghana. Jangas economy is predominantly dependant on the collection and export of Shea nuts, traditionally collected by the women of the community. Thanks to the introduction of smart phones, Shea nut collectors are now able to attach barcodes to each bag of nuts that they collect. Scanning these barcodes on smart-phones means that an individual can keep track of the delivery. The barcodes also identify which bags belong to whom, so that the collector receives the right price for their product, based on the amount of and the quality of nuts they collected. While this business model is simple, it endows local workers with more control and bargaining power. | Technology increased workers control over the products they sell. | entailment |
id_5868 | Teens Try to Change the World, One Purchase at a Time When classes adjourn here at the Fayerweather Street School, eighth-graders ignore the mall down the street and go straight to the place they consider much cooler: the local natural-foods grocers. There, they gather in groups of ten or more sometimes, smitten by a marketing atmosphere that links attractiveness to eating well. When time comes to buy something even as small as a chocolate treat, they feel good knowing a farmer somewhere probably received a good price. Food is something you need to stay alive, says eighth-grader Emma Lewis. Paying farmers well is really important because if we didnt have any unprocessed food, wed all be living on candy. Eating morally, as some describe it, is becoming a priority for teenagers as well as adults in their early 20s. What began a decade ago as a concern on college campuses to shun clothing made in overseas sweatshops has given birth to a parallel phenomenon in the food and beverage industries. Here, youthful shoppers are leveraging their dollars in a bid to reduce pesticide usage, limit deforestation, and make sure farmers are not left with a pittance on payday. Once again, college campuses are setting the pace. Students at 30 colleges have helped persuade administrators to make sure all cafeteria coffee comes with a Fair Trade label, which means bean pickers in Latin America and Africa were paid higher than the going rates. Their peers on another 300 campuses are pushing to follow suit, according to Students United for Fair Trade in Washington, D. C. Coffee is just the beginning. Bon Appetit, an institutional food-service provider based in California, relies on organic and locally grown produce. In each year since 2001, more than 25 colleges have asked the company to bid on their food-service contracts. Though Bon Appetit intentionally limits its growth, its collegiate client list has grown from 58 to 71 in that period. Its really just been in the last five years that weve seen students become concerned with where their food was coming from, says Maisie Ganzler, Bon Appetits director of strategic initiatives. Prior to that, students were excited to be getting sugared cereal. To reach a younger set that often does not drink coffee, Fair Trade importer Equal Exchange rolled our a line of cocoa in 2003 and chocolate bars in 2004. Profits in both sectors have justified the project, says Equal Exchange co-president Hob Everts. What is more, dozens of schools have contacted the firm to use its products in fundraisers and as classroom teaching, tools. Kids often are the ones who agitate in the family for recycling and other eco-friendly practices, Mr. Everts says. So, its a ripe audience. Concerns of todays youthful food shoppers seem to reflect in some ways the idealism that inspired prior generations to join boycotts in solidarity with farm workers. Todays efforts are distinct in that youthful consumers say they do not want to make sacrifices. They want high-quality, competitively priced goods that do not require exploitation of workers or the environment. They will gladly reward companies that deliver. One activist who shares this sentiment and hears it repeatedly from her peers is Summer Rayne Oakes, a recent college graduate and fashion model who promotes stylish Fair Trade clothing. Im not going to buy something that cant stand on its own or looks bad just because its socially responsible, Ms. Oakes says. My generation has come to terms with the fact that were all consumers, and we all buy something. So, if I do have to buy food, what are the consequences? Wanting to ameliorate the worlds big problems can be frustrating, especially for those who feel ineffective because they are young. Marketers are figuring out that teenagers resent this feeling of powerlessness and are pushing products that make young buyers feel as though they are making a difference, says Michael Wood, vice president of Teenage Research Unlimited. His example: Ethos Water from Starbucks, which contributes five cents from every bottle sold to water-purification centres in developing countries. This is a very easy way for young people to contribute. All they have to do is buy bottled water, Mr. Wood says. Buying products or supporting companies that give them ways to support global issues is one way for them to get involved, and they really appreciate that. Convenience is also driving consumer activism. Joe Curnow, national coordinator of United Students for Fair Trade, says she first got involved about five years ago as a high schooler when she spent time hanging out in cafes. Buying coffee with an eco-friendly label was a very easy way for me to express what I believed in, she says. For young teens, consumption is their first foray into activism. At the Fayerweather Street School, Emma Lewis teamed up with classmates Kayla Kleinman and Therese LaRue to sell Fair Trade chocolate, cocoa, and other products at a school fundraiser in November. When the tally reached $8,000, they realised they were striking a chord. Some adults hasten to point out the limitations of ethical consumption as a tool for doing good deeds and personal growth. Gary Lindsay, director of Childrens Ministries, encourages Fair Trade purchases, but he also organises children to collect toys for foster children and save coins for a playground-construction project in Tanzania. He says it helps them learn to enjoy helping others even when they are not getting anything tangible in return. When were benefiting, how much are we really giving? Is it really sacrifice? Mr. Lindsay asks of Fair Trade products, he says: Those things are great when were given opportunities like that once in a while, but I think for us to expect that we should get something out of everything we do is a very selfish attitude to have. | Bon Appetit used to sell sugared cereal. | neutral |
id_5869 | Teens Try to Change the World, One Purchase at a Time When classes adjourn here at the Fayerweather Street School, eighth-graders ignore the mall down the street and go straight to the place they consider much cooler: the local natural-foods grocers. There, they gather in groups of ten or more sometimes, smitten by a marketing atmosphere that links attractiveness to eating well. When time comes to buy something even as small as a chocolate treat, they feel good knowing a farmer somewhere probably received a good price. Food is something you need to stay alive, says eighth-grader Emma Lewis. Paying farmers well is really important because if we didnt have any unprocessed food, wed all be living on candy. Eating morally, as some describe it, is becoming a priority for teenagers as well as adults in their early 20s. What began a decade ago as a concern on college campuses to shun clothing made in overseas sweatshops has given birth to a parallel phenomenon in the food and beverage industries. Here, youthful shoppers are leveraging their dollars in a bid to reduce pesticide usage, limit deforestation, and make sure farmers are not left with a pittance on payday. Once again, college campuses are setting the pace. Students at 30 colleges have helped persuade administrators to make sure all cafeteria coffee comes with a Fair Trade label, which means bean pickers in Latin America and Africa were paid higher than the going rates. Their peers on another 300 campuses are pushing to follow suit, according to Students United for Fair Trade in Washington, D. C. Coffee is just the beginning. Bon Appetit, an institutional food-service provider based in California, relies on organic and locally grown produce. In each year since 2001, more than 25 colleges have asked the company to bid on their food-service contracts. Though Bon Appetit intentionally limits its growth, its collegiate client list has grown from 58 to 71 in that period. Its really just been in the last five years that weve seen students become concerned with where their food was coming from, says Maisie Ganzler, Bon Appetits director of strategic initiatives. Prior to that, students were excited to be getting sugared cereal. To reach a younger set that often does not drink coffee, Fair Trade importer Equal Exchange rolled our a line of cocoa in 2003 and chocolate bars in 2004. Profits in both sectors have justified the project, says Equal Exchange co-president Hob Everts. What is more, dozens of schools have contacted the firm to use its products in fundraisers and as classroom teaching, tools. Kids often are the ones who agitate in the family for recycling and other eco-friendly practices, Mr. Everts says. So, its a ripe audience. Concerns of todays youthful food shoppers seem to reflect in some ways the idealism that inspired prior generations to join boycotts in solidarity with farm workers. Todays efforts are distinct in that youthful consumers say they do not want to make sacrifices. They want high-quality, competitively priced goods that do not require exploitation of workers or the environment. They will gladly reward companies that deliver. One activist who shares this sentiment and hears it repeatedly from her peers is Summer Rayne Oakes, a recent college graduate and fashion model who promotes stylish Fair Trade clothing. Im not going to buy something that cant stand on its own or looks bad just because its socially responsible, Ms. Oakes says. My generation has come to terms with the fact that were all consumers, and we all buy something. So, if I do have to buy food, what are the consequences? Wanting to ameliorate the worlds big problems can be frustrating, especially for those who feel ineffective because they are young. Marketers are figuring out that teenagers resent this feeling of powerlessness and are pushing products that make young buyers feel as though they are making a difference, says Michael Wood, vice president of Teenage Research Unlimited. His example: Ethos Water from Starbucks, which contributes five cents from every bottle sold to water-purification centres in developing countries. This is a very easy way for young people to contribute. All they have to do is buy bottled water, Mr. Wood says. Buying products or supporting companies that give them ways to support global issues is one way for them to get involved, and they really appreciate that. Convenience is also driving consumer activism. Joe Curnow, national coordinator of United Students for Fair Trade, says she first got involved about five years ago as a high schooler when she spent time hanging out in cafes. Buying coffee with an eco-friendly label was a very easy way for me to express what I believed in, she says. For young teens, consumption is their first foray into activism. At the Fayerweather Street School, Emma Lewis teamed up with classmates Kayla Kleinman and Therese LaRue to sell Fair Trade chocolate, cocoa, and other products at a school fundraiser in November. When the tally reached $8,000, they realised they were striking a chord. Some adults hasten to point out the limitations of ethical consumption as a tool for doing good deeds and personal growth. Gary Lindsay, director of Childrens Ministries, encourages Fair Trade purchases, but he also organises children to collect toys for foster children and save coins for a playground-construction project in Tanzania. He says it helps them learn to enjoy helping others even when they are not getting anything tangible in return. When were benefiting, how much are we really giving? Is it really sacrifice? Mr. Lindsay asks of Fair Trade products, he says: Those things are great when were given opportunities like that once in a while, but I think for us to expect that we should get something out of everything we do is a very selfish attitude to have. | Gary Lindsay thinks people should do more than just consume ethically. | entailment |
id_5870 | Teens Try to Change the World, One Purchase at a Time When classes adjourn here at the Fayerweather Street School, eighth-graders ignore the mall down the street and go straight to the place they consider much cooler: the local natural-foods grocers. There, they gather in groups of ten or more sometimes, smitten by a marketing atmosphere that links attractiveness to eating well. When time comes to buy something even as small as a chocolate treat, they feel good knowing a farmer somewhere probably received a good price. Food is something you need to stay alive, says eighth-grader Emma Lewis. Paying farmers well is really important because if we didnt have any unprocessed food, wed all be living on candy. Eating morally, as some describe it, is becoming a priority for teenagers as well as adults in their early 20s. What began a decade ago as a concern on college campuses to shun clothing made in overseas sweatshops has given birth to a parallel phenomenon in the food and beverage industries. Here, youthful shoppers are leveraging their dollars in a bid to reduce pesticide usage, limit deforestation, and make sure farmers are not left with a pittance on payday. Once again, college campuses are setting the pace. Students at 30 colleges have helped persuade administrators to make sure all cafeteria coffee comes with a Fair Trade label, which means bean pickers in Latin America and Africa were paid higher than the going rates. Their peers on another 300 campuses are pushing to follow suit, according to Students United for Fair Trade in Washington, D. C. Coffee is just the beginning. Bon Appetit, an institutional food-service provider based in California, relies on organic and locally grown produce. In each year since 2001, more than 25 colleges have asked the company to bid on their food-service contracts. Though Bon Appetit intentionally limits its growth, its collegiate client list has grown from 58 to 71 in that period. Its really just been in the last five years that weve seen students become concerned with where their food was coming from, says Maisie Ganzler, Bon Appetits director of strategic initiatives. Prior to that, students were excited to be getting sugared cereal. To reach a younger set that often does not drink coffee, Fair Trade importer Equal Exchange rolled our a line of cocoa in 2003 and chocolate bars in 2004. Profits in both sectors have justified the project, says Equal Exchange co-president Hob Everts. What is more, dozens of schools have contacted the firm to use its products in fundraisers and as classroom teaching, tools. Kids often are the ones who agitate in the family for recycling and other eco-friendly practices, Mr. Everts says. So, its a ripe audience. Concerns of todays youthful food shoppers seem to reflect in some ways the idealism that inspired prior generations to join boycotts in solidarity with farm workers. Todays efforts are distinct in that youthful consumers say they do not want to make sacrifices. They want high-quality, competitively priced goods that do not require exploitation of workers or the environment. They will gladly reward companies that deliver. One activist who shares this sentiment and hears it repeatedly from her peers is Summer Rayne Oakes, a recent college graduate and fashion model who promotes stylish Fair Trade clothing. Im not going to buy something that cant stand on its own or looks bad just because its socially responsible, Ms. Oakes says. My generation has come to terms with the fact that were all consumers, and we all buy something. So, if I do have to buy food, what are the consequences? Wanting to ameliorate the worlds big problems can be frustrating, especially for those who feel ineffective because they are young. Marketers are figuring out that teenagers resent this feeling of powerlessness and are pushing products that make young buyers feel as though they are making a difference, says Michael Wood, vice president of Teenage Research Unlimited. His example: Ethos Water from Starbucks, which contributes five cents from every bottle sold to water-purification centres in developing countries. This is a very easy way for young people to contribute. All they have to do is buy bottled water, Mr. Wood says. Buying products or supporting companies that give them ways to support global issues is one way for them to get involved, and they really appreciate that. Convenience is also driving consumer activism. Joe Curnow, national coordinator of United Students for Fair Trade, says she first got involved about five years ago as a high schooler when she spent time hanging out in cafes. Buying coffee with an eco-friendly label was a very easy way for me to express what I believed in, she says. For young teens, consumption is their first foray into activism. At the Fayerweather Street School, Emma Lewis teamed up with classmates Kayla Kleinman and Therese LaRue to sell Fair Trade chocolate, cocoa, and other products at a school fundraiser in November. When the tally reached $8,000, they realised they were striking a chord. Some adults hasten to point out the limitations of ethical consumption as a tool for doing good deeds and personal growth. Gary Lindsay, director of Childrens Ministries, encourages Fair Trade purchases, but he also organises children to collect toys for foster children and save coins for a playground-construction project in Tanzania. He says it helps them learn to enjoy helping others even when they are not getting anything tangible in return. When were benefiting, how much are we really giving? Is it really sacrifice? Mr. Lindsay asks of Fair Trade products, he says: Those things are great when were given opportunities like that once in a while, but I think for us to expect that we should get something out of everything we do is a very selfish attitude to have. | Summer Rayne Oakes will wear clothes that do not look so good as long as they promote Fair Trade. | contradiction |
id_5871 | Teens Try to Change the World, One Purchase at a Time When classes adjourn here at the Fayerweather Street School, eighth-graders ignore the mall down the street and go straight to the place they consider much cooler: the local natural-foods grocers. There, they gather in groups of ten or more sometimes, smitten by a marketing atmosphere that links attractiveness to eating well. When time comes to buy something even as small as a chocolate treat, they feel good knowing a farmer somewhere probably received a good price. Food is something you need to stay alive, says eighth-grader Emma Lewis. Paying farmers well is really important because if we didnt have any unprocessed food, wed all be living on candy. Eating morally, as some describe it, is becoming a priority for teenagers as well as adults in their early 20s. What began a decade ago as a concern on college campuses to shun clothing made in overseas sweatshops has given birth to a parallel phenomenon in the food and beverage industries. Here, youthful shoppers are leveraging their dollars in a bid to reduce pesticide usage, limit deforestation, and make sure farmers are not left with a pittance on payday. Once again, college campuses are setting the pace. Students at 30 colleges have helped persuade administrators to make sure all cafeteria coffee comes with a Fair Trade label, which means bean pickers in Latin America and Africa were paid higher than the going rates. Their peers on another 300 campuses are pushing to follow suit, according to Students United for Fair Trade in Washington, D. C. Coffee is just the beginning. Bon Appetit, an institutional food-service provider based in California, relies on organic and locally grown produce. In each year since 2001, more than 25 colleges have asked the company to bid on their food-service contracts. Though Bon Appetit intentionally limits its growth, its collegiate client list has grown from 58 to 71 in that period. Its really just been in the last five years that weve seen students become concerned with where their food was coming from, says Maisie Ganzler, Bon Appetits director of strategic initiatives. Prior to that, students were excited to be getting sugared cereal. To reach a younger set that often does not drink coffee, Fair Trade importer Equal Exchange rolled our a line of cocoa in 2003 and chocolate bars in 2004. Profits in both sectors have justified the project, says Equal Exchange co-president Hob Everts. What is more, dozens of schools have contacted the firm to use its products in fundraisers and as classroom teaching, tools. Kids often are the ones who agitate in the family for recycling and other eco-friendly practices, Mr. Everts says. So, its a ripe audience. Concerns of todays youthful food shoppers seem to reflect in some ways the idealism that inspired prior generations to join boycotts in solidarity with farm workers. Todays efforts are distinct in that youthful consumers say they do not want to make sacrifices. They want high-quality, competitively priced goods that do not require exploitation of workers or the environment. They will gladly reward companies that deliver. One activist who shares this sentiment and hears it repeatedly from her peers is Summer Rayne Oakes, a recent college graduate and fashion model who promotes stylish Fair Trade clothing. Im not going to buy something that cant stand on its own or looks bad just because its socially responsible, Ms. Oakes says. My generation has come to terms with the fact that were all consumers, and we all buy something. So, if I do have to buy food, what are the consequences? Wanting to ameliorate the worlds big problems can be frustrating, especially for those who feel ineffective because they are young. Marketers are figuring out that teenagers resent this feeling of powerlessness and are pushing products that make young buyers feel as though they are making a difference, says Michael Wood, vice president of Teenage Research Unlimited. His example: Ethos Water from Starbucks, which contributes five cents from every bottle sold to water-purification centres in developing countries. This is a very easy way for young people to contribute. All they have to do is buy bottled water, Mr. Wood says. Buying products or supporting companies that give them ways to support global issues is one way for them to get involved, and they really appreciate that. Convenience is also driving consumer activism. Joe Curnow, national coordinator of United Students for Fair Trade, says she first got involved about five years ago as a high schooler when she spent time hanging out in cafes. Buying coffee with an eco-friendly label was a very easy way for me to express what I believed in, she says. For young teens, consumption is their first foray into activism. At the Fayerweather Street School, Emma Lewis teamed up with classmates Kayla Kleinman and Therese LaRue to sell Fair Trade chocolate, cocoa, and other products at a school fundraiser in November. When the tally reached $8,000, they realised they were striking a chord. Some adults hasten to point out the limitations of ethical consumption as a tool for doing good deeds and personal growth. Gary Lindsay, director of Childrens Ministries, encourages Fair Trade purchases, but he also organises children to collect toys for foster children and save coins for a playground-construction project in Tanzania. He says it helps them learn to enjoy helping others even when they are not getting anything tangible in return. When were benefiting, how much are we really giving? Is it really sacrifice? Mr. Lindsay asks of Fair Trade products, he says: Those things are great when were given opportunities like that once in a while, but I think for us to expect that we should get something out of everything we do is a very selfish attitude to have. | Rob Everts thinks that kids do not understand about protecting the environment. | contradiction |
id_5872 | Teens Try to Change the World, One Purchase at a Time When classes adjourn here at the Fayerweather Street School, eighth-graders ignore the mall down the street and go straight to the place they consider much cooler: the local natural-foods grocers. There, they gather in groups of ten or more sometimes, smitten by a marketing atmosphere that links attractiveness to eating well. When time comes to buy something even as small as a chocolate treat, they feel good knowing a farmer somewhere probably received a good price. Food is something you need to stay alive, says eighth-grader Emma Lewis. Paying farmers well is really important because if we didnt have any unprocessed food, wed all be living on candy. Eating morally, as some describe it, is becoming a priority for teenagers as well as adults in their early 20s. What began a decade ago as a concern on college campuses to shun clothing made in overseas sweatshops has given birth to a parallel phenomenon in the food and beverage industries. Here, youthful shoppers are leveraging their dollars in a bid to reduce pesticide usage, limit deforestation, and make sure farmers are not left with a pittance on payday. Once again, college campuses are setting the pace. Students at 30 colleges have helped persuade administrators to make sure all cafeteria coffee comes with a Fair Trade label, which means bean pickers in Latin America and Africa were paid higher than the going rates. Their peers on another 300 campuses are pushing to follow suit, according to Students United for Fair Trade in Washington, D. C. Coffee is just the beginning. Bon Appetit, an institutional food-service provider based in California, relies on organic and locally grown produce. In each year since 2001, more than 25 colleges have asked the company to bid on their food-service contracts. Though Bon Appetit intentionally limits its growth, its collegiate client list has grown from 58 to 71 in that period. Its really just been in the last five years that weve seen students become concerned with where their food was coming from, says Maisie Ganzler, Bon Appetits director of strategic initiatives. Prior to that, students were excited to be getting sugared cereal. To reach a younger set that often does not drink coffee, Fair Trade importer Equal Exchange rolled our a line of cocoa in 2003 and chocolate bars in 2004. Profits in both sectors have justified the project, says Equal Exchange co-president Hob Everts. What is more, dozens of schools have contacted the firm to use its products in fundraisers and as classroom teaching, tools. Kids often are the ones who agitate in the family for recycling and other eco-friendly practices, Mr. Everts says. So, its a ripe audience. Concerns of todays youthful food shoppers seem to reflect in some ways the idealism that inspired prior generations to join boycotts in solidarity with farm workers. Todays efforts are distinct in that youthful consumers say they do not want to make sacrifices. They want high-quality, competitively priced goods that do not require exploitation of workers or the environment. They will gladly reward companies that deliver. One activist who shares this sentiment and hears it repeatedly from her peers is Summer Rayne Oakes, a recent college graduate and fashion model who promotes stylish Fair Trade clothing. Im not going to buy something that cant stand on its own or looks bad just because its socially responsible, Ms. Oakes says. My generation has come to terms with the fact that were all consumers, and we all buy something. So, if I do have to buy food, what are the consequences? Wanting to ameliorate the worlds big problems can be frustrating, especially for those who feel ineffective because they are young. Marketers are figuring out that teenagers resent this feeling of powerlessness and are pushing products that make young buyers feel as though they are making a difference, says Michael Wood, vice president of Teenage Research Unlimited. His example: Ethos Water from Starbucks, which contributes five cents from every bottle sold to water-purification centres in developing countries. This is a very easy way for young people to contribute. All they have to do is buy bottled water, Mr. Wood says. Buying products or supporting companies that give them ways to support global issues is one way for them to get involved, and they really appreciate that. Convenience is also driving consumer activism. Joe Curnow, national coordinator of United Students for Fair Trade, says she first got involved about five years ago as a high schooler when she spent time hanging out in cafes. Buying coffee with an eco-friendly label was a very easy way for me to express what I believed in, she says. For young teens, consumption is their first foray into activism. At the Fayerweather Street School, Emma Lewis teamed up with classmates Kayla Kleinman and Therese LaRue to sell Fair Trade chocolate, cocoa, and other products at a school fundraiser in November. When the tally reached $8,000, they realised they were striking a chord. Some adults hasten to point out the limitations of ethical consumption as a tool for doing good deeds and personal growth. Gary Lindsay, director of Childrens Ministries, encourages Fair Trade purchases, but he also organises children to collect toys for foster children and save coins for a playground-construction project in Tanzania. He says it helps them learn to enjoy helping others even when they are not getting anything tangible in return. When were benefiting, how much are we really giving? Is it really sacrifice? Mr. Lindsay asks of Fair Trade products, he says: Those things are great when were given opportunities like that once in a while, but I think for us to expect that we should get something out of everything we do is a very selfish attitude to have. | Fair Trade coffee is more expensive than usual coffee. | neutral |
id_5873 | Television is changing as it goes digital. The result will not only be better-quality pictures and sound but also personal TV, with viewers able to tailor the programmes they watch and even interact with them. How much money this will make for programme producers or broadcasters, whoever they may be, is not so clear. Cable, satellite and terrestrial television broadcasters are upgrading their equipment to provide higher quality digital services. Rupert Murdochs News Corporation will become the first company in the world to migrate an entire national TV system over to digital when it turns off its old analogue version of its British satellite service, BSkyB. | Rupert Murdoch is associated with BSkyB. | entailment |
id_5874 | Television is changing as it goes digital. The result will not only be better-quality pictures and sound but also personal TV, with viewers able to tailor the programmes they watch and even interact with them. How much money this will make for programme producers or broadcasters, whoever they may be, is not so clear. Cable, satellite and terrestrial television broadcasters are upgrading their equipment to provide higher quality digital services. Rupert Murdochs News Corporation will become the first company in the world to migrate an entire national TV system over to digital when it turns off its old analogue version of its British satellite service, BSkyB. | The only change from traditional analogue services to digital services will be the picture quality. | contradiction |
id_5875 | Television is changing as it goes digital. The result will not only be better-quality pictures and sound but also personal TV, with viewers able to tailor the programmes they watch and even interact with them. How much money this will make for programme producers or broadcasters, whoever they may be, is not so clear. Cable, satellite and terrestrial television broadcasters are upgrading their equipment to provide higher quality digital services. Rupert Murdochs News Corporation will become the first company in the world to migrate an entire national TV system over to digital when it turns off its old analogue version of its British satellite service, BSkyB. | Television broadcasters are upgrading their equipment because they will make more money from digital TV. | neutral |
id_5876 | Television is changing as it goes digital. The result will not only be better-quality pictures and sound but also personal TV, with viewers able to tailor the programmes they watch and even take part in them. How much money this makes for programme-makers or broadcasters, whoever they turn out to be, is not so clear. Cable, satellite and terrestrial television broadcasters are upgrading their equipment to provide higher-quality digital services. Rupert Murdochs News Corporation will become the first company in the world to migrate an entire national TV system over to digital services when it turns off its old analogue version of its British satellite service, BSkyB. | Rupert Murdoch is the owner of BSkyB. | entailment |
id_5877 | Television is changing as it goes digital. The result will not only be better-quality pictures and sound but also personal TV, with viewers able to tailor the programmes they watch and even take part in them. How much money this makes for programme-makers or broadcasters, whoever they turn out to be, is not so clear. Cable, satellite and terrestrial television broadcasters are upgrading their equipment to provide higher-quality digital services. Rupert Murdochs News Corporation will become the first company in the world to migrate an entire national TV system over to digital services when it turns off its old analogue version of its British satellite service, BSkyB. | The only change from traditional analogue services to digital services will be the picture quality. | contradiction |
id_5878 | Television is changing as it goes digital. The result will not only be better-quality pictures and sound but also personal TV, with viewers able to tailor the programmes they watch and even take part in them. How much money this makes for programme-makers or broadcasters, whoever they turn out to be, is not so clear. Cable, satellite and terrestrial television broadcasters are upgrading their equipment to provide higher-quality digital services. Rupert Murdochs News Corporation will become the first company in the world to migrate an entire national TV system over to digital services when it turns off its old analogue version of its British satellite service, BSkyB. | Television broadcasters are upgrading their equipment because they will make more money from digital TV. | neutral |
id_5879 | Ten new television shows appeared during the month of September. Five of the shows were sitcoms, three were hour-long dramas, and two were news-magazine shows. By January, only seven of these new shows were still on the air. Five of the shows that remained were sitcoms. | At least one of the shows that was cancelled was an hour-long drama. | entailment |
id_5880 | Ten new television shows appeared during the month of September. Five of the shows were sitcoms, three were hour-long dramas, and two were news-magazine shows. By January, only seven of these new shows were still on the air. Five of the shows that remained were sitcoms. | Only one of the hour-long dramas remained on the air. | neutral |
id_5881 | Ten new television shows appeared during the month of September. Five of the shows were sitcoms, three were hour-long dramas, and two were news-magazine shows. By January, only seven of these new shows were still on the air. Five of the shows that remained were sitcoms. | Only one of the news-magazine shows remained on the air. | neutral |
id_5882 | Ten new television shows appeared during the month of September. Five of the shows were sitcoms, three were hour-long dramas, and two were news-magazine shows. By January, only seven of these new shows were still on the air. Five of the shows that remained were sitcoms. | Television viewers prefer sitcoms over hour-long dramas. | neutral |
id_5883 | Terminated Dinosaur Era A. The age of dinosaurs, which ended with the cataclysmic bang of a meteor impact 65 million years ago, may also have begun with one. Researchers found recently the first direct, though tentative, geological evidence of a meteor impact 200 million years ago, coinciding with a mass extinction that eliminated half of the major groups of life and opened the evolutionary 1 door for what was then a relatively small group of animals: dinosaurs. B. The cause and timing of the ascent of dinosaurs has have been much debated. It has been impossible to draw any specific conclusions because the transition between the origin of dinosaurs and their ascent to dominance has not been sampled in detail. "There is a geochemical signature of something important happening, probably an asteroid impact, just before the time in which familiar dinosaur-dominated communities appear, " said Dr. Paul E. Olsen, a professor of earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N. Y. C. Olsen and his colleagues studied vertebrate fossils from 80 sites in four different ancient rift basins, part of a chain of rifts that formed as North America began to split apart from the supercontinent that existed 230-190 million years ago. In the layer of rock corresponding to the extinction, the scientists found elevated amounts of the rare element iridium. A precious metal belonging to the platinum group of elements, iridium is more abundant in meteorites than in rocks. D. On Earth, A similar spike of iridium in 65 million- year-old rocks gave rise in the 1970s to the theory that a meteor caused the demise of the dinosaurs. That theory remained controversial for years until it was corroborated by other evidence and the impact site was found off the Yucatan Peninsula. Scientists will need to examine the new iridium anomaly similarly. The levels are only about one-tenth as high as those found at the later extinction. That could mean that the meteor was smaller or contained less iridium or that a meteor was not involvediridium can also come from the Earth's interior, belched out by volcanic eruptions. Dr. Michael J. Benton, a professor of vertebrate paleontology at the University of Bristol in England, described the data as "the first reasonably convincing evidence of an iridium spike". E. The scientists found more evidence of rapid extinction in a database of 10,000 fossilized footprints in former lake basins from Virginia to Nova Scotia. Although individual species cannot usually be identified solely from their footprints the tracks of a house cat, for example, resemble those of a baby tiger footprints are much more plentiful than fossil bones and can provide a more complete picture of the types of animals walking around. "It makes it very easy for us to tell the very obvious signals of massive fauna change, " Dr. Olsen said. Because the sediment piles up quickly in lake basins, the researchers were able to assign a date to each footprint, based on the layer of rock where it was found. They determined that the mix of animals walking across what is now the East Coast of North America changed suddenly about 200 million years ago. F. The tracks of several major reptile groups continue almost up to the layer of rock marking the end of the Triassic geologic period 202 million years ago, and then vanish in younger layers from the Jurassic period. "I think the footprint methodology is very novel and very exciting, " said Dr. Peter D. Ward, a professor of geology at the University of Washington. He called the data "very required more research. Last year, researchers led by Dr. Ward reported that the types of carbon in rock changed abruptly at this time, indicating a sudden dying off of plants over less than 50,000 years. The footprint research reinforcesthe hypothesis that the extinction was sudden. G. Several groups of dinosaurs survived that extinction, and the footprints show that new groups emerged soon afterward. Before the extinction, about one-fifth of the footprints were left by dinosaurs; after the extinction, more than half were from dinosaurs. The changes, the researchers said, occurred within 30,000 years- a geological blink of an eye. The scientists postulate that the asteroid or comet impact and the resulting death of Triassic competitors allowed a few groups of carnivorous dinosaurs to evolve in size very quickly and dominate the top of the terrestrial food chain globally. H. Among the creatures that disappeared in the extinction were the dominant predators at the time: 15-foot- long rauisuchians with great knife-like teeth and phytosaurs that resembled large crocodiles. Dinosaurs first evolved about 230 million years ago, but they were small, competing in a crowded ecological niche. Before the extinction 200 million years ago. the largest of the meat-eating dinosaurs were about the see of large dogs. Not terribly impressive. " Dr. Olsen said. The dinosaurs quickly grew. The toe-to-heel length of the foot of a meat eater from the Jurassic period was on average 20 percent longer than its Triassic ancestor. Larger feet can carry bigger bodies; the scientists infer the dinosaurs doubled in weight, eventually evolving into fearsome velociraptors, Tyrannosaurus rex and other large carnivorous dinosaurs. I. The spurt in evolution is similar to the rise of mammals after the extinction of dinosaurs. Mammals, no larger than small dogs during the age of dinosaurs, diversified into tigers, elephants, whales and people after the reptilian competition died away. The success of the dinosaurs after the Triassic-Jurassic extinction may be why they did not survive the second extinction. "Small animals always do better in catastrophic situations. Dr. Olsen said, because they can survive on smaller amounts of food. " He also pointed out that scientists now believe the small dinosaurs did survive. "We just call them birds, " he said. | Large dinosaurs died out but small ones evolved and competed with birdsand mammals. | neutral |
id_5884 | Terminated Dinosaur Era A. The age of dinosaurs, which ended with the cataclysmic bang of a meteor impact 65 million years ago, may also have begun with one. Researchers found recently the first direct, though tentative, geological evidence of a meteor impact 200 million years ago, coinciding with a mass extinction that eliminated half of the major groups of life and opened the evolutionary 1 door for what was then a relatively small group of animals: dinosaurs. B. The cause and timing of the ascent of dinosaurs has have been much debated. It has been impossible to draw any specific conclusions because the transition between the origin of dinosaurs and their ascent to dominance has not been sampled in detail. "There is a geochemical signature of something important happening, probably an asteroid impact, just before the time in which familiar dinosaur-dominated communities appear, " said Dr. Paul E. Olsen, a professor of earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N. Y. C. Olsen and his colleagues studied vertebrate fossils from 80 sites in four different ancient rift basins, part of a chain of rifts that formed as North America began to split apart from the supercontinent that existed 230-190 million years ago. In the layer of rock corresponding to the extinction, the scientists found elevated amounts of the rare element iridium. A precious metal belonging to the platinum group of elements, iridium is more abundant in meteorites than in rocks. D. On Earth, A similar spike of iridium in 65 million- year-old rocks gave rise in the 1970s to the theory that a meteor caused the demise of the dinosaurs. That theory remained controversial for years until it was corroborated by other evidence and the impact site was found off the Yucatan Peninsula. Scientists will need to examine the new iridium anomaly similarly. The levels are only about one-tenth as high as those found at the later extinction. That could mean that the meteor was smaller or contained less iridium or that a meteor was not involvediridium can also come from the Earth's interior, belched out by volcanic eruptions. Dr. Michael J. Benton, a professor of vertebrate paleontology at the University of Bristol in England, described the data as "the first reasonably convincing evidence of an iridium spike". E. The scientists found more evidence of rapid extinction in a database of 10,000 fossilized footprints in former lake basins from Virginia to Nova Scotia. Although individual species cannot usually be identified solely from their footprints the tracks of a house cat, for example, resemble those of a baby tiger footprints are much more plentiful than fossil bones and can provide a more complete picture of the types of animals walking around. "It makes it very easy for us to tell the very obvious signals of massive fauna change, " Dr. Olsen said. Because the sediment piles up quickly in lake basins, the researchers were able to assign a date to each footprint, based on the layer of rock where it was found. They determined that the mix of animals walking across what is now the East Coast of North America changed suddenly about 200 million years ago. F. The tracks of several major reptile groups continue almost up to the layer of rock marking the end of the Triassic geologic period 202 million years ago, and then vanish in younger layers from the Jurassic period. "I think the footprint methodology is very novel and very exciting, " said Dr. Peter D. Ward, a professor of geology at the University of Washington. He called the data "very required more research. Last year, researchers led by Dr. Ward reported that the types of carbon in rock changed abruptly at this time, indicating a sudden dying off of plants over less than 50,000 years. The footprint research reinforcesthe hypothesis that the extinction was sudden. G. Several groups of dinosaurs survived that extinction, and the footprints show that new groups emerged soon afterward. Before the extinction, about one-fifth of the footprints were left by dinosaurs; after the extinction, more than half were from dinosaurs. The changes, the researchers said, occurred within 30,000 years- a geological blink of an eye. The scientists postulate that the asteroid or comet impact and the resulting death of Triassic competitors allowed a few groups of carnivorous dinosaurs to evolve in size very quickly and dominate the top of the terrestrial food chain globally. H. Among the creatures that disappeared in the extinction were the dominant predators at the time: 15-foot- long rauisuchians with great knife-like teeth and phytosaurs that resembled large crocodiles. Dinosaurs first evolved about 230 million years ago, but they were small, competing in a crowded ecological niche. Before the extinction 200 million years ago. the largest of the meat-eating dinosaurs were about the see of large dogs. Not terribly impressive. " Dr. Olsen said. The dinosaurs quickly grew. The toe-to-heel length of the foot of a meat eater from the Jurassic period was on average 20 percent longer than its Triassic ancestor. Larger feet can carry bigger bodies; the scientists infer the dinosaurs doubled in weight, eventually evolving into fearsome velociraptors, Tyrannosaurus rex and other large carnivorous dinosaurs. I. The spurt in evolution is similar to the rise of mammals after the extinction of dinosaurs. Mammals, no larger than small dogs during the age of dinosaurs, diversified into tigers, elephants, whales and people after the reptilian competition died away. The success of the dinosaurs after the Triassic-Jurassic extinction may be why they did not survive the second extinction. "Small animals always do better in catastrophic situations. Dr. Olsen said, because they can survive on smaller amounts of food. " He also pointed out that scientists now believe the small dinosaurs did survive. "We just call them birds, " he said. | Footprints are of little value in providing information, in comparison to fossil bones, because individual species cannot be identified with footprints. | contradiction |
id_5885 | Terminated Dinosaur Era A. The age of dinosaurs, which ended with the cataclysmic bang of a meteor impact 65 million years ago, may also have begun with one. Researchers found recently the first direct, though tentative, geological evidence of a meteor impact 200 million years ago, coinciding with a mass extinction that eliminated half of the major groups of life and opened the evolutionary 1 door for what was then a relatively small group of animals: dinosaurs. B. The cause and timing of the ascent of dinosaurs has have been much debated. It has been impossible to draw any specific conclusions because the transition between the origin of dinosaurs and their ascent to dominance has not been sampled in detail. "There is a geochemical signature of something important happening, probably an asteroid impact, just before the time in which familiar dinosaur-dominated communities appear, " said Dr. Paul E. Olsen, a professor of earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N. Y. C. Olsen and his colleagues studied vertebrate fossils from 80 sites in four different ancient rift basins, part of a chain of rifts that formed as North America began to split apart from the supercontinent that existed 230-190 million years ago. In the layer of rock corresponding to the extinction, the scientists found elevated amounts of the rare element iridium. A precious metal belonging to the platinum group of elements, iridium is more abundant in meteorites than in rocks. D. On Earth, A similar spike of iridium in 65 million- year-old rocks gave rise in the 1970s to the theory that a meteor caused the demise of the dinosaurs. That theory remained controversial for years until it was corroborated by other evidence and the impact site was found off the Yucatan Peninsula. Scientists will need to examine the new iridium anomaly similarly. The levels are only about one-tenth as high as those found at the later extinction. That could mean that the meteor was smaller or contained less iridium or that a meteor was not involvediridium can also come from the Earth's interior, belched out by volcanic eruptions. Dr. Michael J. Benton, a professor of vertebrate paleontology at the University of Bristol in England, described the data as "the first reasonably convincing evidence of an iridium spike". E. The scientists found more evidence of rapid extinction in a database of 10,000 fossilized footprints in former lake basins from Virginia to Nova Scotia. Although individual species cannot usually be identified solely from their footprints the tracks of a house cat, for example, resemble those of a baby tiger footprints are much more plentiful than fossil bones and can provide a more complete picture of the types of animals walking around. "It makes it very easy for us to tell the very obvious signals of massive fauna change, " Dr. Olsen said. Because the sediment piles up quickly in lake basins, the researchers were able to assign a date to each footprint, based on the layer of rock where it was found. They determined that the mix of animals walking across what is now the East Coast of North America changed suddenly about 200 million years ago. F. The tracks of several major reptile groups continue almost up to the layer of rock marking the end of the Triassic geologic period 202 million years ago, and then vanish in younger layers from the Jurassic period. "I think the footprint methodology is very novel and very exciting, " said Dr. Peter D. Ward, a professor of geology at the University of Washington. He called the data "very required more research. Last year, researchers led by Dr. Ward reported that the types of carbon in rock changed abruptly at this time, indicating a sudden dying off of plants over less than 50,000 years. The footprint research reinforcesthe hypothesis that the extinction was sudden. G. Several groups of dinosaurs survived that extinction, and the footprints show that new groups emerged soon afterward. Before the extinction, about one-fifth of the footprints were left by dinosaurs; after the extinction, more than half were from dinosaurs. The changes, the researchers said, occurred within 30,000 years- a geological blink of an eye. The scientists postulate that the asteroid or comet impact and the resulting death of Triassic competitors allowed a few groups of carnivorous dinosaurs to evolve in size very quickly and dominate the top of the terrestrial food chain globally. H. Among the creatures that disappeared in the extinction were the dominant predators at the time: 15-foot- long rauisuchians with great knife-like teeth and phytosaurs that resembled large crocodiles. Dinosaurs first evolved about 230 million years ago, but they were small, competing in a crowded ecological niche. Before the extinction 200 million years ago. the largest of the meat-eating dinosaurs were about the see of large dogs. Not terribly impressive. " Dr. Olsen said. The dinosaurs quickly grew. The toe-to-heel length of the foot of a meat eater from the Jurassic period was on average 20 percent longer than its Triassic ancestor. Larger feet can carry bigger bodies; the scientists infer the dinosaurs doubled in weight, eventually evolving into fearsome velociraptors, Tyrannosaurus rex and other large carnivorous dinosaurs. I. The spurt in evolution is similar to the rise of mammals after the extinction of dinosaurs. Mammals, no larger than small dogs during the age of dinosaurs, diversified into tigers, elephants, whales and people after the reptilian competition died away. The success of the dinosaurs after the Triassic-Jurassic extinction may be why they did not survive the second extinction. "Small animals always do better in catastrophic situations. Dr. Olsen said, because they can survive on smaller amounts of food. " He also pointed out that scientists now believe the small dinosaurs did survive. "We just call them birds, " he said. | The meteor impact theory had been suspected before the discovery of the impact site and other supporting evidence. | entailment |
id_5886 | Terminated Dinosaur Era A. The age of dinosaurs, which ended with the cataclysmic bang of a meteor impact 65 million years ago, may also have begun with one. Researchers found recently the first direct, though tentative, geological evidence of a meteor impact 200 million years ago, coinciding with a mass extinction that eliminated half of the major groups of life and opened the evolutionary 1 door for what was then a relatively small group of animals: dinosaurs. B. The cause and timing of the ascent of dinosaurs has have been much debated. It has been impossible to draw any specific conclusions because the transition between the origin of dinosaurs and their ascent to dominance has not been sampled in detail. "There is a geochemical signature of something important happening, probably an asteroid impact, just before the time in which familiar dinosaur-dominated communities appear, " said Dr. Paul E. Olsen, a professor of earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N. Y. C. Olsen and his colleagues studied vertebrate fossils from 80 sites in four different ancient rift basins, part of a chain of rifts that formed as North America began to split apart from the supercontinent that existed 230-190 million years ago. In the layer of rock corresponding to the extinction, the scientists found elevated amounts of the rare element iridium. A precious metal belonging to the platinum group of elements, iridium is more abundant in meteorites than in rocks. D. On Earth, A similar spike of iridium in 65 million- year-old rocks gave rise in the 1970s to the theory that a meteor caused the demise of the dinosaurs. That theory remained controversial for years until it was corroborated by other evidence and the impact site was found off the Yucatan Peninsula. Scientists will need to examine the new iridium anomaly similarly. The levels are only about one-tenth as high as those found at the later extinction. That could mean that the meteor was smaller or contained less iridium or that a meteor was not involvediridium can also come from the Earth's interior, belched out by volcanic eruptions. Dr. Michael J. Benton, a professor of vertebrate paleontology at the University of Bristol in England, described the data as "the first reasonably convincing evidence of an iridium spike". E. The scientists found more evidence of rapid extinction in a database of 10,000 fossilized footprints in former lake basins from Virginia to Nova Scotia. Although individual species cannot usually be identified solely from their footprints the tracks of a house cat, for example, resemble those of a baby tiger footprints are much more plentiful than fossil bones and can provide a more complete picture of the types of animals walking around. "It makes it very easy for us to tell the very obvious signals of massive fauna change, " Dr. Olsen said. Because the sediment piles up quickly in lake basins, the researchers were able to assign a date to each footprint, based on the layer of rock where it was found. They determined that the mix of animals walking across what is now the East Coast of North America changed suddenly about 200 million years ago. F. The tracks of several major reptile groups continue almost up to the layer of rock marking the end of the Triassic geologic period 202 million years ago, and then vanish in younger layers from the Jurassic period. "I think the footprint methodology is very novel and very exciting, " said Dr. Peter D. Ward, a professor of geology at the University of Washington. He called the data "very required more research. Last year, researchers led by Dr. Ward reported that the types of carbon in rock changed abruptly at this time, indicating a sudden dying off of plants over less than 50,000 years. The footprint research reinforcesthe hypothesis that the extinction was sudden. G. Several groups of dinosaurs survived that extinction, and the footprints show that new groups emerged soon afterward. Before the extinction, about one-fifth of the footprints were left by dinosaurs; after the extinction, more than half were from dinosaurs. The changes, the researchers said, occurred within 30,000 years- a geological blink of an eye. The scientists postulate that the asteroid or comet impact and the resulting death of Triassic competitors allowed a few groups of carnivorous dinosaurs to evolve in size very quickly and dominate the top of the terrestrial food chain globally. H. Among the creatures that disappeared in the extinction were the dominant predators at the time: 15-foot- long rauisuchians with great knife-like teeth and phytosaurs that resembled large crocodiles. Dinosaurs first evolved about 230 million years ago, but they were small, competing in a crowded ecological niche. Before the extinction 200 million years ago. the largest of the meat-eating dinosaurs were about the see of large dogs. Not terribly impressive. " Dr. Olsen said. The dinosaurs quickly grew. The toe-to-heel length of the foot of a meat eater from the Jurassic period was on average 20 percent longer than its Triassic ancestor. Larger feet can carry bigger bodies; the scientists infer the dinosaurs doubled in weight, eventually evolving into fearsome velociraptors, Tyrannosaurus rex and other large carnivorous dinosaurs. I. The spurt in evolution is similar to the rise of mammals after the extinction of dinosaurs. Mammals, no larger than small dogs during the age of dinosaurs, diversified into tigers, elephants, whales and people after the reptilian competition died away. The success of the dinosaurs after the Triassic-Jurassic extinction may be why they did not survive the second extinction. "Small animals always do better in catastrophic situations. Dr. Olsen said, because they can survive on smaller amounts of food. " He also pointed out that scientists now believe the small dinosaurs did survive. "We just call them birds, " he said. | The creatures that disappeared in the extinction were the dominantly the 15- foot-long rauisuchians and large crocodiles. | contradiction |
id_5887 | Terminated Dinosaur Era A. The age of dinosaurs, which ended with the cataclysmic bang of a meteor impact 65 million years ago, may also have begun with one. Researchers found recently the first direct, though tentative, geological evidence of a meteor impact 200 million years ago, coinciding with a mass extinction that eliminated half of the major groups of life and opened the evolutionary 1 door for what was then a relatively small group of animals: dinosaurs. B. The cause and timing of the ascent of dinosaurs has have been much debated. It has been impossible to draw any specific conclusions because the transition between the origin of dinosaurs and their ascent to dominance has not been sampled in detail. "There is a geochemical signature of something important happening, probably an asteroid impact, just before the time in which familiar dinosaur-dominated communities appear, " said Dr. Paul E. Olsen, a professor of earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N. Y. C. Olsen and his colleagues studied vertebrate fossils from 80 sites in four different ancient rift basins, part of a chain of rifts that formed as North America began to split apart from the supercontinent that existed 230-190 million years ago. In the layer of rock corresponding to the extinction, the scientists found elevated amounts of the rare element iridium. A precious metal belonging to the platinum group of elements, iridium is more abundant in meteorites than in rocks. D. On Earth, A similar spike of iridium in 65 million- year-old rocks gave rise in the 1970s to the theory that a meteor caused the demise of the dinosaurs. That theory remained controversial for years until it was corroborated by other evidence and the impact site was found off the Yucatan Peninsula. Scientists will need to examine the new iridium anomaly similarly. The levels are only about one-tenth as high as those found at the later extinction. That could mean that the meteor was smaller or contained less iridium or that a meteor was not involvediridium can also come from the Earth's interior, belched out by volcanic eruptions. Dr. Michael J. Benton, a professor of vertebrate paleontology at the University of Bristol in England, described the data as "the first reasonably convincing evidence of an iridium spike". E. The scientists found more evidence of rapid extinction in a database of 10,000 fossilized footprints in former lake basins from Virginia to Nova Scotia. Although individual species cannot usually be identified solely from their footprints the tracks of a house cat, for example, resemble those of a baby tiger footprints are much more plentiful than fossil bones and can provide a more complete picture of the types of animals walking around. "It makes it very easy for us to tell the very obvious signals of massive fauna change, " Dr. Olsen said. Because the sediment piles up quickly in lake basins, the researchers were able to assign a date to each footprint, based on the layer of rock where it was found. They determined that the mix of animals walking across what is now the East Coast of North America changed suddenly about 200 million years ago. F. The tracks of several major reptile groups continue almost up to the layer of rock marking the end of the Triassic geologic period 202 million years ago, and then vanish in younger layers from the Jurassic period. "I think the footprint methodology is very novel and very exciting, " said Dr. Peter D. Ward, a professor of geology at the University of Washington. He called the data "very required more research. Last year, researchers led by Dr. Ward reported that the types of carbon in rock changed abruptly at this time, indicating a sudden dying off of plants over less than 50,000 years. The footprint research reinforcesthe hypothesis that the extinction was sudden. G. Several groups of dinosaurs survived that extinction, and the footprints show that new groups emerged soon afterward. Before the extinction, about one-fifth of the footprints were left by dinosaurs; after the extinction, more than half were from dinosaurs. The changes, the researchers said, occurred within 30,000 years- a geological blink of an eye. The scientists postulate that the asteroid or comet impact and the resulting death of Triassic competitors allowed a few groups of carnivorous dinosaurs to evolve in size very quickly and dominate the top of the terrestrial food chain globally. H. Among the creatures that disappeared in the extinction were the dominant predators at the time: 15-foot- long rauisuchians with great knife-like teeth and phytosaurs that resembled large crocodiles. Dinosaurs first evolved about 230 million years ago, but they were small, competing in a crowded ecological niche. Before the extinction 200 million years ago. the largest of the meat-eating dinosaurs were about the see of large dogs. Not terribly impressive. " Dr. Olsen said. The dinosaurs quickly grew. The toe-to-heel length of the foot of a meat eater from the Jurassic period was on average 20 percent longer than its Triassic ancestor. Larger feet can carry bigger bodies; the scientists infer the dinosaurs doubled in weight, eventually evolving into fearsome velociraptors, Tyrannosaurus rex and other large carnivorous dinosaurs. I. The spurt in evolution is similar to the rise of mammals after the extinction of dinosaurs. Mammals, no larger than small dogs during the age of dinosaurs, diversified into tigers, elephants, whales and people after the reptilian competition died away. The success of the dinosaurs after the Triassic-Jurassic extinction may be why they did not survive the second extinction. "Small animals always do better in catastrophic situations. Dr. Olsen said, because they can survive on smaller amounts of food. " He also pointed out that scientists now believe the small dinosaurs did survive. "We just call them birds, " he said. | The rare element, iridium, was presented both on earth and in meteorites. | entailment |
id_5888 | Terminated Dinosaur Era A. The age of dinosaurs, which ended with the cataclysmic bang of a meteor impact 65 million years ago, may also have begun with one. Researchers found recently the first direct, though tentative, geological evidence of a meteor impact 200 million years ago, coinciding with a mass extinction that eliminated half of the major groups of life and opened the evolutionary 1 door for what was then a relatively small group of animals: dinosaurs. B. The cause and timing of the ascent of dinosaurs has have been much debated. It has been impossible to draw any specific conclusions because the transition between the origin of dinosaurs and their ascent to dominance has not been sampled in detail. "There is a geochemical signature of something important happening, probably an asteroid impact, just before the time in which familiar dinosaur-dominated communities appear, " said Dr. Paul E. Olsen, a professor of earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N. Y. C. Olsen and his colleagues studied vertebrate fossils from 80 sites in four different ancient rift basins, part of a chain of rifts that formed as North America began to split apart from the supercontinent that existed 230-190 million years ago. In the layer of rock corresponding to the extinction, the scientists found elevated amounts of the rare element iridium. A precious metal belonging to the platinum group of elements, iridium is more abundant in meteorites than in rocks. D. On Earth, A similar spike of iridium in 65 million- year-old rocks gave rise in the 1970s to the theory that a meteor caused the demise of the dinosaurs. That theory remained controversial for years until it was corroborated by other evidence and the impact site was found off the Yucatan Peninsula. Scientists will need to examine the new iridium anomaly similarly. The levels are only about one-tenth as high as those found at the later extinction. That could mean that the meteor was smaller or contained less iridium or that a meteor was not involvediridium can also come from the Earth's interior, belched out by volcanic eruptions. Dr. Michael J. Benton, a professor of vertebrate paleontology at the University of Bristol in England, described the data as "the first reasonably convincing evidence of an iridium spike". E. The scientists found more evidence of rapid extinction in a database of 10,000 fossilized footprints in former lake basins from Virginia to Nova Scotia. Although individual species cannot usually be identified solely from their footprints the tracks of a house cat, for example, resemble those of a baby tiger footprints are much more plentiful than fossil bones and can provide a more complete picture of the types of animals walking around. "It makes it very easy for us to tell the very obvious signals of massive fauna change, " Dr. Olsen said. Because the sediment piles up quickly in lake basins, the researchers were able to assign a date to each footprint, based on the layer of rock where it was found. They determined that the mix of animals walking across what is now the East Coast of North America changed suddenly about 200 million years ago. F. The tracks of several major reptile groups continue almost up to the layer of rock marking the end of the Triassic geologic period 202 million years ago, and then vanish in younger layers from the Jurassic period. "I think the footprint methodology is very novel and very exciting, " said Dr. Peter D. Ward, a professor of geology at the University of Washington. He called the data "very required more research. Last year, researchers led by Dr. Ward reported that the types of carbon in rock changed abruptly at this time, indicating a sudden dying off of plants over less than 50,000 years. The footprint research reinforcesthe hypothesis that the extinction was sudden. G. Several groups of dinosaurs survived that extinction, and the footprints show that new groups emerged soon afterward. Before the extinction, about one-fifth of the footprints were left by dinosaurs; after the extinction, more than half were from dinosaurs. The changes, the researchers said, occurred within 30,000 years- a geological blink of an eye. The scientists postulate that the asteroid or comet impact and the resulting death of Triassic competitors allowed a few groups of carnivorous dinosaurs to evolve in size very quickly and dominate the top of the terrestrial food chain globally. H. Among the creatures that disappeared in the extinction were the dominant predators at the time: 15-foot- long rauisuchians with great knife-like teeth and phytosaurs that resembled large crocodiles. Dinosaurs first evolved about 230 million years ago, but they were small, competing in a crowded ecological niche. Before the extinction 200 million years ago. the largest of the meat-eating dinosaurs were about the see of large dogs. Not terribly impressive. " Dr. Olsen said. The dinosaurs quickly grew. The toe-to-heel length of the foot of a meat eater from the Jurassic period was on average 20 percent longer than its Triassic ancestor. Larger feet can carry bigger bodies; the scientists infer the dinosaurs doubled in weight, eventually evolving into fearsome velociraptors, Tyrannosaurus rex and other large carnivorous dinosaurs. I. The spurt in evolution is similar to the rise of mammals after the extinction of dinosaurs. Mammals, no larger than small dogs during the age of dinosaurs, diversified into tigers, elephants, whales and people after the reptilian competition died away. The success of the dinosaurs after the Triassic-Jurassic extinction may be why they did not survive the second extinction. "Small animals always do better in catastrophic situations. Dr. Olsen said, because they can survive on smaller amounts of food. " He also pointed out that scientists now believe the small dinosaurs did survive. "We just call them birds, " he said. | According to scientists, the transition to a dinosaur-dominated era took place very quickly by geological time scales. | entailment |
id_5889 | Terminated Dinosaur Era A. The age of dinosaurs, which ended with the cataclysmic bang of a meteor impact 65 million years ago, may also have begun with one. Researchers found recently the first direct, though tentative, geological evidence of a meteor impact 200 million years ago, coinciding with a mass extinction that eliminated half of the major groups of life and opened the evolutionary 1 door for what was then a relatively small group of animals: dinosaurs. B. The cause and timing of the ascent of dinosaurs has have been much debated. It has been impossible to draw any specific conclusions because the transition between the origin of dinosaurs and their ascent to dominance has not been sampled in detail. "There is a geochemical signature of something important happening, probably an asteroid impact, just before the time in which familiar dinosaur-dominated communities appear, " said Dr. Paul E. Olsen, a professor of earth and environmental sciences at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N. Y. C. Olsen and his colleagues studied vertebrate fossils from 80 sites in four different ancient rift basins, part of a chain of rifts that formed as North America began to split apart from the supercontinent that existed 230-190 million years ago. In the layer of rock corresponding to the extinction, the scientists found elevated amounts of the rare element iridium. A precious metal belonging to the platinum group of elements, iridium is more abundant in meteorites than in rocks. D. On Earth, A similar spike of iridium in 65 million- year-old rocks gave rise in the 1970s to the theory that a meteor caused the demise of the dinosaurs. That theory remained controversial for years until it was corroborated by other evidence and the impact site was found off the Yucatan Peninsula. Scientists will need to examine the new iridium anomaly similarly. The levels are only about one-tenth as high as those found at the later extinction. That could mean that the meteor was smaller or contained less iridium or that a meteor was not involvediridium can also come from the Earth's interior, belched out by volcanic eruptions. Dr. Michael J. Benton, a professor of vertebrate paleontology at the University of Bristol in England, described the data as "the first reasonably convincing evidence of an iridium spike". E. The scientists found more evidence of rapid extinction in a database of 10,000 fossilized footprints in former lake basins from Virginia to Nova Scotia. Although individual species cannot usually be identified solely from their footprints the tracks of a house cat, for example, resemble those of a baby tiger footprints are much more plentiful than fossil bones and can provide a more complete picture of the types of animals walking around. "It makes it very easy for us to tell the very obvious signals of massive fauna change, " Dr. Olsen said. Because the sediment piles up quickly in lake basins, the researchers were able to assign a date to each footprint, based on the layer of rock where it was found. They determined that the mix of animals walking across what is now the East Coast of North America changed suddenly about 200 million years ago. F. The tracks of several major reptile groups continue almost up to the layer of rock marking the end of the Triassic geologic period 202 million years ago, and then vanish in younger layers from the Jurassic period. "I think the footprint methodology is very novel and very exciting, " said Dr. Peter D. Ward, a professor of geology at the University of Washington. He called the data "very required more research. Last year, researchers led by Dr. Ward reported that the types of carbon in rock changed abruptly at this time, indicating a sudden dying off of plants over less than 50,000 years. The footprint research reinforcesthe hypothesis that the extinction was sudden. G. Several groups of dinosaurs survived that extinction, and the footprints show that new groups emerged soon afterward. Before the extinction, about one-fifth of the footprints were left by dinosaurs; after the extinction, more than half were from dinosaurs. The changes, the researchers said, occurred within 30,000 years- a geological blink of an eye. The scientists postulate that the asteroid or comet impact and the resulting death of Triassic competitors allowed a few groups of carnivorous dinosaurs to evolve in size very quickly and dominate the top of the terrestrial food chain globally. H. Among the creatures that disappeared in the extinction were the dominant predators at the time: 15-foot- long rauisuchians with great knife-like teeth and phytosaurs that resembled large crocodiles. Dinosaurs first evolved about 230 million years ago, but they were small, competing in a crowded ecological niche. Before the extinction 200 million years ago. the largest of the meat-eating dinosaurs were about the see of large dogs. Not terribly impressive. " Dr. Olsen said. The dinosaurs quickly grew. The toe-to-heel length of the foot of a meat eater from the Jurassic period was on average 20 percent longer than its Triassic ancestor. Larger feet can carry bigger bodies; the scientists infer the dinosaurs doubled in weight, eventually evolving into fearsome velociraptors, Tyrannosaurus rex and other large carnivorous dinosaurs. I. The spurt in evolution is similar to the rise of mammals after the extinction of dinosaurs. Mammals, no larger than small dogs during the age of dinosaurs, diversified into tigers, elephants, whales and people after the reptilian competition died away. The success of the dinosaurs after the Triassic-Jurassic extinction may be why they did not survive the second extinction. "Small animals always do better in catastrophic situations. Dr. Olsen said, because they can survive on smaller amounts of food. " He also pointed out that scientists now believe the small dinosaurs did survive. "We just call them birds, " he said. | Tyrannosaurus rex was larger in body size than other carnivorous dinosaurs. | neutral |
id_5890 | That marriage is a failure none but the very stupid will deny. One has but to glance over the statistics of divorce to realise how bitter a failed marriage really is. Nor will the stereotyped Philistine argument that the laxity of divorce laws and the growing looseness of women account for the fact that: first, every twelfth marriage ends in divorce; second, that since 1870 divorces have increased from 28 to 73 for every hundred thousand population; third, that adultery, since 1867, as ground for divorce, has increased 270.8 percent; fourth, that desertion increased 369.8 percent. Henrik Ibsen, the hater of all social shams, was probably the first to realize this great truth. Nora leaves her husband, not as the stupid critic would have it, because she is tired of her responsibilities or feels the need of womans rights, but because she has come to know that for eight years she had lived with a stranger and borne him children. The moral lesson instilled in the girl is not whether the man has aroused her love, but rather is it, How much? The important and only God of practical American life: Can the man make a living? Can he support a wife? That is the only thing that justifies marriage. Gradually, this saturates every thought of the girl; her dreams are not of moonlight and kisses, of laughter and tears; she dreams of shopping tours and bargain counters. Can there be anything more humiliating, more degrading than a life- long proximity between two strangers? No need for the woman to know anything of the man, save his income. As to the knowledge of the woman what is there to know except that she has a pleasing appearance? | In America, every twelfth marriage ends in divorce. | neutral |
id_5891 | That marriage is a failure none but the very stupid will deny. One has but to glance over the statistics of divorce to realise how bitter a failed marriage really is. Nor will the stereotyped Philistine argument that the laxity of divorce laws and the growing looseness of women account for the fact that: first, every twelfth marriage ends in divorce; second, that since 1870 divorces have increased from 28 to 73 for every hundred thousand population; third, that adultery, since 1867, as ground for divorce, has increased 270.8 percent; fourth, that desertion increased 369.8 percent. Henrik Ibsen, the hater of all social shams, was probably the first to realize this great truth. Nora leaves her husband, not as the stupid critic would have it, because she is tired of her responsibilities or feels the need of womans rights, but because she has come to know that for eight years she had lived with a stranger and borne him children. The moral lesson instilled in the girl is not whether the man has aroused her love, but rather is it, How much? The important and only God of practical American life: Can the man make a living? Can he support a wife? That is the only thing that justifies marriage. Gradually, this saturates every thought of the girl; her dreams are not of moonlight and kisses, of laughter and tears; she dreams of shopping tours and bargain counters. Can there be anything more humiliating, more degrading than a life- long proximity between two strangers? No need for the woman to know anything of the man, save his income. As to the knowledge of the woman what is there to know except that she has a pleasing appearance? | Nora did not want children. | neutral |
id_5892 | That marriage is a failure none but the very stupid will deny. One has but to glance over the statistics of divorce to realise how bitter a failed marriage really is. Nor will the stereotyped Philistine argument that the laxity of divorce laws and the growing looseness of women account for the fact that: first, every twelfth marriage ends in divorce; second, that since 1870 divorces have increased from 28 to 73 for every hundred thousand population; third, that adultery, since 1867, as ground for divorce, has increased 270.8 percent; fourth, that desertion increased 369.8 percent. Henrik Ibsen, the hater of all social shams, was probably the first to realize this great truth. Nora leaves her husband, not as the stupid critic would have it, because she is tired of her responsibilities or feels the need of womans rights, but because she has come to know that for eight years she had lived with a stranger and borne him children. The moral lesson instilled in the girl is not whether the man has aroused her love, but rather is it, How much? The important and only God of practical American life: Can the man make a living? Can he support a wife? That is the only thing that justifies marriage. Gradually, this saturates every thought of the girl; her dreams are not of moonlight and kisses, of laughter and tears; she dreams of shopping tours and bargain counters. Can there be anything more humiliating, more degrading than a life- long proximity between two strangers? No need for the woman to know anything of the man, save his income. As to the knowledge of the woman what is there to know except that she has a pleasing appearance? | The author believes that marriages end due to the looseness of women. | contradiction |
id_5893 | That marriage is a failure none but the very stupid will deny. One has but to glance over the statistics of divorce to realise how bitter a failed marriage really is. Nor will the stereotyped Philistine argument that the laxity of divorce laws and the growing looseness of women account for the fact that: first, every twelfth marriage ends in divorce; second, that since 1870 divorces have increased from 28 to 73 for every hundred thousand population; third, that adultery, since 1867, as ground for divorce, has increased 270.8 percent; fourth, that desertion increased 369.8 percent. Henrik Ibsen, the hater of all social shams, was probably the first to realize this great truth. Nora leaves her husband, not as the stupid critic would have it, because she is tired of her responsibilities or feels the need of womans rights, but because she has come to know that for eight years she had lived with a stranger and borne him children. The moral lesson instilled in the girl is not whether the man has aroused her love, but rather is it, How much? The important and only God of practical American life: Can the man make a living? Can he support a wife? That is the only thing that justifies marriage. Gradually, this saturates every thought of the girl; her dreams are not of moonlight and kisses, of laughter and tears; she dreams of shopping tours and bargain counters. Can there be anything more humiliating, more degrading than a life- long proximity between two strangers? No need for the woman to know anything of the man, save his income. As to the knowledge of the woman what is there to know except that she has a pleasing appearance? | According to the passage, most women get married for the sake of money. | entailment |
id_5894 | That marriage is a failure none but the very stupid will deny. One has but to glance over the statistics of divorce to realise how bitter a failed marriage really is. Nor will the stereotyped Philistine argument that the laxity of divorce laws and the growing looseness of women account for the fact that: first, every twelfth marriage ends in divorce; second, that since 1870 divorces have increased from 28 to 73 for every hundred thousand population; third, that adultery, since 1867, as ground for divorce, has increased 270.8 percent; fourth, that desertion increased 369.8 percent. Henrik Ibsen, the hater of all social shams, was probably the first to realize this great truth. Nora leaves her husband, not as the stupid critic would have it, because she is tired of her responsibilities or feels the need of womans rights, but because she has come to know that for eight years she had lived with a stranger and borne him children. The moral lesson instilled in the girl is not whether the man has aroused her love, but rather is it, How much? The important and only God of practical American life: Can the man make a living? Can he support a wife? That is the only thing that justifies marriage. Gradually, this saturates every thought of the girl; her dreams are not of moonlight and kisses, of laughter and tears; she dreams of shopping tours and bargain counters. Can there be anything more humiliating, more degrading than a life- long proximity between two strangers? No need for the woman to know anything of the man, save his income. As to the knowledge of the woman what is there to know except that she has a pleasing appearance? | Women always end up dreaming of moonlight kisses later in marriage. | contradiction |
id_5895 | The 2008 A level results show that 97.2% of students passed compared with 96.6% in 2007. And 25.9% gained A grades, a rise of 0.6% from the 2007 results. The number of students sitting A levels in 2008 was also up, at a record high of 827,737. This high success-rate is causing concerns in some quarters that the exams are getting easier. However the government attribute the annual change to the increased spending on schools over the period. Meanwhile the general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, Dr Mary Bousted, has berated teaching methods in schools as spoon-feeding students to pass exams without developing the desire to continue learning or gaining the skills necessary to learn independently. Adding to the debate, the general secretary of the University and College Union, Sally Hunt, suggested it is unfair to downplay the students results and the hard work of their teachers. | A level exams are getting easier. | neutral |
id_5896 | The 2008 A level results show that 97.2% of students passed compared with 96.6% in 2007. And 25.9% gained A grades, a rise of 0.6% from the 2007 results. The number of students sitting A levels in 2008 was also up, at a record high of 827,737. This high success-rate is causing concerns in some quarters that the exams are getting easier. However the government attribute the annual change to the increased spending on schools over the period. Meanwhile the general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, Dr Mary Bousted, has berated teaching methods in schools as spoon-feeding students to pass exams without developing the desire to continue learning or gaining the skills necessary to learn independently. Adding to the debate, the general secretary of the University and College Union, Sally Hunt, suggested it is unfair to downplay the students results and the hard work of their teachers. | More money was spent on schools in 2008 than in 2007. | entailment |
id_5897 | The 2008 A level results show that 97.2% of students passed compared with 96.6% in 2007. And 25.9% gained A grades, a rise of 0.6% from the 2007 results. The number of students sitting A levels in 2008 was also up, at a record high of 827,737. This high success-rate is causing concerns in some quarters that the exams are getting easier. However the government attribute the annual change to the increased spending on schools over the period. Meanwhile the general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, Dr Mary Bousted, has berated teaching methods in schools as spoon-feeding students to pass exams without developing the desire to continue learning or gaining the skills necessary to learn independently. Adding to the debate, the general secretary of the University and College Union, Sally Hunt, suggested it is unfair to downplay the students results and the hard work of their teachers. | A level results have improved every year. | neutral |
id_5898 | The AAA rating currently enjoyed by British banks may be about to change, as the governor of the Banque de France, Christian Noyer, lashed out at the amount of British debt. This statement was made in response to warnings received by the French government that a number of banks across Europe, including France, are being considered for downgrading. Noyers outburst continued, as he stated that a downgrade for France was unjust, and that the downgrades should start with the UK, which currently has a larger amount of debt, more inflation and weaker growth than France. However, the French economy is expected to shrink both this quarter and the next, suggesting the nation is suffering from recession. In light of this, a warning for Mr Noyer not to throw stones in glass houses appears apt. | Christian Noyer called it unjust for French banks to lose their AAA status. | entailment |
id_5899 | The AAA rating currently enjoyed by British banks may be about to change, as the governor of the Banque de France, Christian Noyer, lashed out at the amount of British debt. This statement was made in response to warnings received by the French government that a number of banks across Europe, including France, are being considered for downgrading. Noyers outburst continued, as he stated that a downgrade for France was unjust, and that the downgrades should start with the UK, which currently has a larger amount of debt, more inflation and weaker growth than France. However, the French economy is expected to shrink both this quarter and the next, suggesting the nation is suffering from recession. In light of this, a warning for Mr Noyer not to throw stones in glass houses appears apt. | British banks will be downgraded from their AAA status. | contradiction |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.