Multiple Choice and Matching Tasks

When choosing a new colour for your walls or doors, your only concern today might be whether the shade you've chosen matches your furniture or suits your mood. In the 19th century, such concerns would be nothing compared to the possibility that the paint you've chosen might kill you. While mass-produced wall coverings were still in the experimental phase, some particularly hazardous chemicals were in use. These may even have brought down Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. The mystery behind his death has often been a source of discussion, but a small piece of wallpaper from his bedroom has now provided the clue to resolve this debate.

It may not seem obvious today, but there was a time when your choice of decoration depended on what colors had been invented. Some ingredients were so expensive that certain colours were only available to the very wealthy. But demand for paint was high and those rich deep greens simply couldn't be reproduced in large amounts to the same high standards for reasons of cost. Hoping to find a less expensive version, in 1814 two men called Russ and Sattler were experimenting with the chemical balance in a popular green of the day known as Scheele's green. It was made with a mineral called copper, and arsenic, which were chemicals already used in the trade. The result was an emerald green that was almost as good as more expensive versions around the time. Happily for the creators, they introduced their paint just as a growing market for colours in the Lancashire mills, which were producing cotton at an industrial pace for the first time in the world. It appeared in soaps, glass and even children's toys. It was also deadly poisonous.

The new industrialists began production, using a variety of brands from 1814 onwards. One famous German chemist, Leopold Gmelin, was suspicious almost immediately after it started to be sold, and he raised his concerns about the safety of the dye in 1815. Gmelin noticed that in damp weather, walls with Scheele's green gave off a mouse-like smell, a sign of arsenic, which medical experts had already accepted was a risk to health. He recommended that people take down their wallpaper immediately, but fashion mattered more than scientists' warnings. Even when the list of ingredients was published in 1822, and the dangers became obvious to many chemists with a basic understanding of poisons, few members of the buying public wanted to listen to the medical warnings.

Clearly, when older people do heavy physical work, their age may affect their productivity. But other skills may increase with age, including many that are crucial for good management, such as an ability to handle people diplomatically, to run a meeting or to spot a problem before it blows up. Peter Hicks, who co-ordinates OECD work on the policy implications of ageing, says that plenty of research suggests older people are paid more because they are worth more.

And the virtues of the young may be exaggerated. "The few companies that have kept on older workers find they have good judgement and their productivity is good," says Peter Peterson, author of a recent book on the impact of aging. "Besides, their education standards are much better than those of today's young high-school graduates."

Companies may say that older workers are not worth training because they are reaching the end of their working lives; in fact, young people tend to switch jobs so frequently that they offer the worst returns on training. The median age for employer-driven training is the late 40s and early 50s, and this training goes mainly to managers.

OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The general assumption is that older workers are paid more in spite of, rather than because of, their productivity. That might partly explain why, when employers are under pressure to cut costs, they persuade a 55-year old to take early retirement. Take away seniority-based pay scales, and older workers may become a much more attractive employment proposition. But most employers and many workers are uncomfortable with the idea of reducing someone's pay in later life - although manual workers on piece-rates often earn less as they get older. So retaining the services of older workers may mean employing them in different ways.

One innovation was devised by IBM Belgium. Faced with the need to cut staff costs, and having decided to concentrate cuts on 55 to 60-year olds, IBM set up a separate company called Skill Team, which re-employed any of the early retired who wanted to go on working up to the age of 60. An employee who joined Skill Team at the age of 55 on a five-year contract would work for 58% of his time, over the full period, for 88% of his last IBM salary. The company offered services to IBM, thus allowing it to retain access to some of the intellectual capital it would otherwise have lost.

The best way to tempt the old to go on working may be to build on such bridge jobs: part-time or temporary employment that creates a more gradual transition from full-time work to retirement. Studies have found that, in the United States, nearly half of all men and women who had been in full-time jobs in middle age moved into such bridge jobs at the end of their working lives. In general, it is the best-paid and worst-paid who carry on working. There seem to be two very different types of bridge job-holder - those who continue working because they have to and those who continue working because they want to, even though they could afford to retire.

If the job market grows more flexible, the old may find more jobs that suit them. Often, they will be self-employed. Sometimes, they may start their own businesses: a study by David Storey of Warwick University found that in Britain 70% of businesses started by people over 55 survived, compared with an overall national average of only 19%. But whatever pattern of employment they choose, in the coming years the skills of these grey workers will have to be increasingly acknowledged and rewarded.

A. From my perspective, many types of animals residing in zoos or wildlife reserves can have a level of well-being that is equal to or better than that found in the jungle. Animals in reputable zoos are fed a diversified, high-quality diet that includes all of the necessary nutrients, and any ailments they may have are treated. Their freedom of mobility may be limited, but they reside in a safe facility free of violence and social exclusion from others of their species. They are not threatened or stressed by predators, nor are they bothered by infections or wounds. Compared to its wild equivalent, the typical caged animal will live longer and will not perish from malnutrition, drought, or a predator's teeth. I believe it is incorrect to assume that a life that is free is necessarily good because a lot of extremely bad things occur to genuinely wild animals that just do not happen in decent zoos.

B. For starters, zoos help with conservation. Countless species are going extinct around the planet, and several are becoming increasingly vulnerable, putting them at risk of extinction. Furthermore, several of these accidents were unanticipated, spectacular, and sudden, or were discovered later. A species that has been produced in confinement can be used as a reserve breed in the event of a population decline or extermination in the wilderness. Many species can only be found in cages, with several of them living in zoos. There would be fewer animals alive now if these efforts had not been made.

C. In addition to this, there is also the education that can take place in zoos through signs, talks, and presentations that directly communicate information to visitors about the animals they are seeing and their place in the world. Zoos might have been poor in this area, but they are currently becoming more advanced in marketing and grassroots efforts. Many people will gain a better grasp of things and a different point of view as a result.

D. Zoos also play an important part in scientific study. We ought to understand how vital species live, act, and react if we are to rescue wildlife and recover and rebuild habitats. Radical progress in wild species can be achieved by conducting studies on mammals and birds because there is less danger and fewer uncertainties. For instance, knowing about an animal's oestrus cycle or breeding rate can assist us in regulating wildlife. Research findings in zoos regarding anesthetic doses, as well as expertise in managing and transferring animals, help with procedures like collecting and relocating at-risk or violent creatures.

E. In conclusion, given the various ongoing worldwide environmental risks, I find it difficult to regard zoos as anything but critical to the ability of thousands of species to survive. They are essential for more than just animal protection; they are also essential to learning about animals to help those that are still in the jungle, as well as for educating and notifying the wider populace about these living creatures and their globe.

A. Psychologists have long held that a person's character cannot undergo a transformation in any meaningful way and that the key traits of personality are determined at a very young age. However, researchers have begun looking more closely at ways we can change. Positive psychologists have identified 24 qualities we admire, such as loyalty and kindness, and are studying them to find out why they come so naturally to some people. What they are discovering is that many of these qualities amount to habitual behaviour that determines the way we respond to the world. The good news is that all this can be learned.

B. 'The evidence is good that most personality traits can be altered,' says Christopher Peterson, professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, who cites himself as an example. Inherently introverted, he realised early on that as an academic, his reticence would prove disastrous in the lecture hall. So he learned to be more outgoing and to entertain his classes. 'Now my extroverted behaviour is spontaneous,' he says.

C. David Fajgenbaum had to make a similar transition. He was preparing for university, when he had an accident that put an end to his sports career. On campus, he quickly found that beyond ordinary counselling, the university had no services for students who were undergoing physical rehabilitation and suffering from depression like him. He therefore launched a support group to help others in similar situations. He took action despite his own pain - a typical response of an optimist.

D. Suzanne Segerstrom, professor of psychology at the University of Kentucky, believes that the key to increasing optimism is through cultivating optimistic behaviour, rather than positive thinking. She recommends you train yourself to pay attention to good fortune by writing down three positive things that come about each day.

E. You can recognise a person who is passionate about a pursuit by the way they are so strongly involved in it. Tanya Streeter's passion is freediving - the sport of plunging deep into the water without tanks or other breathing equipment. Beginning in 1998, she set nine world records and can hold her breath for six minutes. Streeter learned to untangle her fears from her judgment of what her body and mind could do.

F. Finding a pursuit that excites you can improve anyone's life. The secret about consuming passions, though, according to psychologist Paul Silvia of the University of North Carolina, is that they require discipline, hard work and ability, which is why they are so rewarding. Psychologist Todd Kashdan says newcomers must be willing to accept the negative feelings that come their way.

G. In 2004, physician-scientist Mauro Zappaterra began his PhD research at Harvard Medical School. Unfortunately, he was miserable as his research was not compatible with his curiosity about healing. He finally took a break and during eight months in Santa Fe, Zappaterra learned about alternative healing techniques not taught at Harvard. When he got back, he switched labs to study how cerebrospinal fluid nourishes the developing nervous system. He also vowed to look for the joy in everything, including failure.

A scientist who let bees sting him repeatedly on twenty-five different places on his body has been awarded the Ig Nobel Prize for physiology. Michael Smith, of Cornell University, was stung several times a day in different places on his body to find out which parts are the most sensitive. After weeks of research he found that many bee and wasp stings were uncomfortable, and the worst places to be stung were the upper lip and nostril, with the latter being the most painful.

A second researcher who won the physiology prize was Dr Justin Schmidt, a researcher from the Southwestern Biological Institute. He created the Schmidt Sting Pain Index which rates pain caused by bees, wasps and ants. Schmidt believes he has been stung more than a thousand times by 150 different species. While a honey bee only provides a level-two sting, a bullet ant causes the most pain at level four.

A third prize, given to the scientists at Oxford University, did not involve animals. The scientists learnt that doctors can diagnose appendicitis by the levels of pain the patient feels when travelling over speed bumps. Dr Helen Ashdown of the University of Oxford said that asking patients whether their pain worsened going over speed bumps on their way to hospital could help doctors in a diagnosis.

The invention of rockets is linked inextricably with the invention of black powder. Most historians of technology credit the Chinese with its discovery. It is probable that, some time in the tenth century, black powder was first compounded from its basic ingredients of saltpetre, charcoal and sulphur. But this does not mean that it was immediately used to propel rockets. By the thirteenth century, powder-propelled fire arrows had become rather common. One such weapon was the basket of fire, or arrows like flying leopards. Another weapon was the arrow as a flying sabre, which could be fired from crossbows. At a similar time, the Arabs had developed the egg which moves and burns, apparently full of gunpowder and stabilised by a 1.5m tail.

It was not until the eighteenth century that Europe became seriously interested in the possibilities of using the rocket itself as a weapon of war and not just to propel other weapons. The incentive came from far-away India, whose leaders had built up a corps of rocketeers and used rockets successfully against the British in the late eighteenth century. In the early nineteenth century the British began to experiment with incendiary barrage rockets. The Americans developed a rocket, complete with its own launcher, to use against the Mexicans in the mid-nineteenth century.

The only certainties in life, said Benjamin Franklin, are death and taxes. Do not expect either to disappear anytime soon. The prospects for a longer life currently seem rosy, at least if you are a laboratory mouse. This year has seen headlines about mice who can live 20 percent longer than usual.

There are well-publicised optimists who think it will. The most often quoted is Aubrey de Grey of Cambridge, a proponent of a big expansion of research on what he has called Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence.

Many researchers in biogerontology are sceptical about his predictions. That scepticism came through recently when Tom Kirkwood of the University of Newcastle's Institute for Ageing and Health asked in Nature: 'Why must advocates of life extension make preposterous claims about imminent longevity gains if they are to gain public notice?'

Professor Kirkwood is the author of the influential disposable soma theory of ageing that states the body decays because there is little genetic interest in keeping it going beyond reproductive age. This means that he sees no programmed limit to lifespan, in mice or people.

Others in the field tend to agree. Caleb Finch of the University of Southern California says: 'I have a simple view: we do not know what we do not know about aging processes. So, what can be said on future longevity?'

Linda Partridge of University College London's Centre for Research on Ageing says, 'I think that we should be working to promote health during aging rather than on increases in lifespan per year.'

David Gems is optimistic that the basic biology of aging will be understood in the next decade or two. But he stresses that how easily this translates into treating or preventing ageing-related diseases depends on what aging really turns out to be.

Martin Brand of the Medical Research Council's Dunn Human Nutrition Unit in Cambridge also urges caution. He worries that some laboratory results can be explained as putting right bad husbandry of the model organisms rather than affecting ageing itself.