Write the right answer to the question based on the context passage.

[Q]: In this confessional age, TV, radio and print rely for much of their content on the sad stories of those 'victims' of life. The story goes something like this: There is the future 'victim' getting on with their quotidian activities and whoosh, they are whisked into a life of gambling, drugs, sex or junk food addiction. After years of struggle, they finally find redemption and become good people again. As in any good tale of redemption, there has to be a 'reason' for why our 'victim' fell off the rails. Take your pick: they were molested, their parents ran away from home, they were denied desserts except on Sundays. Just thinking about it brings a tear to my stony face. How can you not be moved by tales such as these. What is the precipitating cause of the misery in my life? Well, my mother was French and my father was English. And to make things worse, I was brought up Catholic! Yes folks, in today's shorthand of grievance, I'm a half-breed straddling Canada's great language divide and a religious bigot. My hometown was a mixture of French and English-speaking people and the results of their miscenagation. You could never tell by someone's last name who spoke your language (For instance, my good friend P. Arsenault spoke the Queen's English and my cousin Sean Doyle wouldn't have recognized an Oxford Dictionary if you shoved up his nose). As children, we were segregated by language; all the French-speaking kids went to one side of the school where they spoke French all the time. I was fortunate enough to be sent to the English side of the school and got to speak my native tongue. My parents decided my brother and sister wouldn't be quite so lucky. In an effort to bridge the great language divide, they both spent six years learning everything in French and mingling with the French people (My parents did this because it was the firm belief of all forward-thinking families that whatever road you took would be much smoother if you could speak both of Canada's official languages. As it turns out for my siblings and I, this was not to be the case. Question: who is telling the story?
[A]: the author


[Q]: "Hey, guy."
"No, this is Ray." He smiled, leaned back in his chair.
It was, of course, Pete. Pete was the night shift guy at Crossroads Detox across town. Ray called it the Jesus Shop because it was wholly supported by a contingent of local churches who saw addicts as a potential ministry.
Apparently Jesus saved--not only from sin and hell, but also from Dark Eyed Jim Beam.
Pete was a relatively innocuous born again fundie who volunteered his time two or three nights a week. When he was not saving the world, his Clark Kent was actually a steady CPA job with the local H&R Block. He'd been pulling shifts for about six months, knew nothing about drugs beyond that bad people used them to escape their problems and that they were tools of Satan, and he always needed Ray's advice about one thing or another. This arrangement was not problematic as Pete had long ago given up trying to convert him. Pete was also the only guy in the city who was, as Ray figured it, making less money than he was at such an hour. In return for Ray's magnanimity, Pete had done Ray's taxes for free last year.
They had never actually met, though Ray had faxed him the tax forms and Pete had faxed back a photo of his two pre-teen daughters and his geriatric Lab.
"What's the problem?" Ray asked.
"I have a recalcitrant."
That's what he called them, the drunk and definitely disorderly. Pete's vocabulary did not include the word shithead either in its singular or plural.
"Pete, they're all like that. Alcohol is bad medicine. That's why places like ours are in business. To make them calcitrant."
"I know that." Pete sounded a little annoyed.
There was some commotion in the background, a knocking on doors. Question: Who calls the drunk and disorderly recalcitrants?
[A]: Pete


[Q]: WHITE HOUSE — A day after U.S. President Donald Trump reversed a policy of separating migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border, the House of Representatives is set to vote Thursday on a pair of immigration bills that address the separations as well as other issues that have divided the country's major political parties.
The outcome of the votes is uncertain. One measure is more hard-line, while the other represents a compromise between the Republican Party's conservative and moderate wings.
The compromise bill includes a provision requiring children and their parents to be detained together if they cross the border illegally. It would also provide $25 billion in funding for Trump's much-promised border wall, change the existing visa lottery into a merit-based system and provide a path to citizenship for the young undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children.
Republicans hold a majority in both houses of Congress. Party leaders, including President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan, have lobbied lawmakers this week in hopes of securing their support for the legislation.
"We can enforce our immigration laws without breaking families apart," Ryan said Wednesday before Trump announced he would sign an executive order to end breaking up families.
The president's policy retreat followed a withering attack by Republican and Democratic officials who characterized the family separations as inhumane. The actions left parents with little or no information about where their children were being taken or when or how they would be reunited.
"It's about keeping families together while at the same time making sure that we have a very powerful, very strong border," Trump said as he signed the document just before departing the White House for a political rally in the state of Minnesota.
Later, at the political rally, the president defended his position saying the executive order he signed hours earlier would not weaken his border strategy:
"The border is going to be just as tough as it's been" despite the executive order, he said.
Trump's executive order went into effect immediately when he signed it, according to Gene Hamilton, counselor to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. However, he added, there will be an "implementation phase that follows." Question: Who claimed that the border would continue to be tough, despite the executive order?
[A]:
President Trump


