In this task, you're given an article, a question which often contains a blank, four options (associated with "A", "B", "C", "D") and the answer to that question. Your task is to classify whether the given answer is correct or not by providing "Yes" or "No", based on the article.

[EX Q]: Article: The U. S. Postal Service (USPS) is losing billions of dollars a year. The government company that delivers "small mail" is losing out to email and other types of electronic communication. First-class mail amount fell from a high point of 104 million pieces in 2000 to just 64 million pieces by 2014. Congress permits the 600.000-empIoyee USPS to hold a monopoly   over first-class and standard mail. The company pays no federal, state or local taxes; pays no vehicle fees; and is free from many regulations on other businesses. Despite these advantages, the USPS has lost $52 billion since 2007, and will continue losing money without major reforms. The problem is that Congress is preventing the USPS from reducing costs as its sales decline, and is blocking efforts to end Saturday service and close unneeded post office locations. USPS also has a costly union-dominated workforce that slows the introduction of new ideas or methods down. USPS workers earn significantly higher payment than comparable private-sector workers. The answer is to privatize the USPS and open postal markets to competition. With the rise of the Internet, the argument that mail is a natural monopoly that needs government protection is weaker than ever. Other countries facing declining letter amounts have made reforms Germany and the Netherlands privatized their national postal companies over a decade ago, and other European countries have followed suit. Britain floated shares of the Royal Mail on its stock exchange in 2013. Some countries, such us Sweden and New Zealand, have not privatized their national postal companies, but they have opened them up to competition. These reforms have driven efficiency improvements in all of these countries. Additional number of workers have been reduced, productivity has risen and consumers have benefited. Also, note that cost-cutting measures--such as closing tone post offices--are good for both the economy and the environment. Privatization and competition also encourage new changes. When the USPS monopoly over "extremely urgent" mail was stopped in 1979, we saw an explosion in efficient overnight private delivery by firms such as FedEx. The government needs to wake up to changing technology, study postal reforms abroad and let businessmen reinvent our out-of-date postal system. 
 Question: What do we know about the USPS? 
 Options: (A) Its great competitor is the delivery firm FedEx. (B) It is an old public service open to competitions. (C) Its employees don't pay federal, state or local taxes. (D) It has complete control of first-class and standard mail. 
 Asnwer: A
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: Article: Too often we accuse others of not listening, pretending that we ourselves are faultless, yet in our hearts we know that many of the mistakes we make come about because we haven't listened carefully enough. We get things wrong because we haven't listened carefully enough. We get things wrong because we haven't quite understood what someone meant when they were talking to us. Anyone who has ever taken the minutes of a long meeting will know how hard it is to remember-- despite the benefit of notes-- exactly what everyone said. But success depends on getting things right--and that means listening. Listening is not the same thing as hearing; it is not an effort actively. It demands attention and concentration. It may mean quizzing the speaker for additional information or for clarification------ it is always better to ask than to continue regardless and get things wrong. However, if you allow your mind to wander onto something else, even for a few minutes, you'll miss what the speaker is saying------ probably at the very moment when he or she is saying something critical. And not having heard, you won't know you've missed anything until it's too late. The most common bad habit we have is to start thinking of what we are going to say about the subject long before the other speaker has finished. We then stop listening. Even worse, this often adds rudeness to inattentiveness, as once you have decided what to say there is a fair chance you will interrupt to say it. Good listeners don't interrupt. In fact it is often worth explaining the main idea of what you have just been told before going on to make your own points. Nobody is offended by this and it shows that you have listened well. Above all be patient and accept that many people are not very good communicators. It's helpful to remember that the ways people move and position themselves while they are speaking can reveal a great deal about what they are saying. Equally important you should put yourself in the other person's place, both intellectually and emotionally; it will help you to understand what they are getting at and form a response. But don't be too clever. Faced with a know-all, many people keep quiet because they see no point in continuing. 
 Question: Which is the best title for this passage? 
 Options: (A) Don't be too clever (B) Be a good listener. (C) Don't miss anything critical (D) Think of the speaker 
 Asnwer: A
[EX A]: No

[EX Q]: Article: It would be interesting to discover how many young people go to university without any clear idea of what they are going to do afterwards. If one considers the enormous variety of courses offered, it is not hard to see how difficult it is to select the course most suited to his interests and abilities. If a student goes to acquire a broader perspective of life, to enlarge his ideas and to learn to think for himself, he will undoubtedly benefit, since school often has too restricting an atmosphere, with its timetables and disciplines, to allow him much time for independent assessment of the work he is asked to do. Most students would, I believe, profit by a year or so's exploration of different academic studies, especially those "all-rounders" with no particular bent. They should have longer time to decide in what subject they want to take their degree, so that in later life they do not look back and say, "I should like to have been an archaeologist. If I hadn't taken a degree in Modern Languages, I shouldn't have ended up as an interpreter, but it's too late now. I couldn't go back and begin all over again, even if I had the chance." There is, of course, another side to the question of how to make the best use of one's time at university. This is the case of the student who excels in a particular branch of learning, is a first-rate mathematician, scientist, linguist and what you have. He is immediately accepted by the university of his choice, and spends his three or four years becoming a specialist, emerging with a first-class Honors Degree and very little knowledge of what the rest of the world is all about. It therefore becomes more and more important that, if students are not to waste their opportunities and, incidentally, the taxpayers' money, there will have to be much more detailed information about courses, more advice from Career Masters and Course Tutors if  _ are not to bring up, on one hand, a band of specialists ignorant of anything outside their own subject, and on the other hand, an ever-increasing number of graduates qualified in subjects for which there is little or no demand in the working world. 
 Question: According to the passage, university students should avoid    . 
 Options: (A) acquiring a broad perspective of life (B) allowing themselves the independence of thinking (C) becoming specialists ignorant of what the rest of the world is (D) wasting their opportunities and the taxpayers' money 
 Asnwer: C
[EX A]:
Yes

