Question: Not as a nurse, but as a patient. I had my appendix removed in about 1970 before keyhole surgery and the surgeon had not properly stitched the inside incision. This meant I was slowly “leaking” blood into the area between my abdominal cavity lining and my skin. I was kept in the hospital for two weeks and every day the same nurse would come along and open the end of the incision in my skin to relieve the pressure caused by the pooling of my blood. That was fine for the first five days, but the weekend came and she was off duty. Apparently, nobody else knew what to do. By Monday morning, I was in agony and when she arrived, she was appalled I had not been drained during the weekend. The other thing that happened during the weekend was the end of the skin incision, which she had opened, had mostly healed meaning there was no convenient hole for the blood to be drained. The nurse used a sharp pair of scissors to reopen one end of the partly-healed incision, but still the blood would not simply drain of its own accord. She used both hands to squeeze downwards onto the swollen blood reservoir. At first, there was no reaction except agonizing pain, but after a few seconds and a very hard squeeze, the stinking, coagulated blood jetted out of the hole she’d made squirting across the ceiling, down the wall and down her full-length coating her face and the front of her uniform. Despite the pain, I couldn’t keep myself from laughing loud and long. She then dressed the wound, directed some junior nurses to clean the ceiling and the wall while she went to clean herself. I apologized for laughing the following day when she returned. She told me she appreciated the humor of the situation so there was no “hard feelings.” after the story, the patient is probably  A. going to become a nurse  B. not enough information  C. angry with the surgeon  D. still in terrible pain
Answer: C

Question: The U.S. Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it may be open to new limits on the government's ability to track someone's movements by accessing data on that person's cellphone.  A case before the high court could result in a landmark decision in the ongoing debate over civil liberties protections in an era of rapid technological change.  At issue is whether law enforcement will be able to access cellphone data that can reveal a person's whereabouts without having to first obtain a court-issued search warrant.  The case stems from the conviction of Timothy Carpenter for a series of robberies back in 2010 and 2011. Prosecutors were able to obtain cellphone records that indicated his location over a period of months, information that proved crucial to his conviction. On Wednesday, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union argued that law enforcement should be required to obtain a court-ordered search warrant before obtaining such information.  They also argued that allowing law enforcement to access the cellphone data without a warrant would violate the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures contained in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  "It is impossible to go about our daily lives without leaving a trail of digital breadcrumbs that reveal where we have been over time, what we have done, who we spent time with," said ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, who spoke to reporters outside the Supreme Court following oral arguments. "It is time for the court, we think, to update Fourth Amendment doctrine to provide reasonable protections today."  Some of the justices also raised concerns about privacy in the digital age.  "Most Americans, I think, still want to avoid Big Brother," Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who often sides with the liberal wing of the court, said.  Chief Justice John Roberts, who often sides with conservatives on the court, said the central question was whether the cellphone information should be accessible to the government "without a warrant." How long would the process be to get a warrant?  A. not enough information  B. a week  C. immediately  D. a year
Answer: C

Question: WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton called Republican rival Donald Trump dangerous and unqualified for the presidency in a blistering foreign policy speech Thursday in San Diego, California. "He is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility," Clinton said. "This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes." Trump “doesn’t understand America, or the world,” she said. "It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin." In anticipation of the address, Trump attacked his Democratic opponent on Twitter. “Crooked Hillary Clinton, who I would love to call Lyin’ Hillary, is getting ready to totally misrepresent my foreign policy positions,” he tweeted. Clinton emphasized her own experience as first lady, senator and secretary of state, saying she would provide the steady diplomacy the country needs. “National security is the foundation of how we make sure our interests are pursued in the world,” said Louis Goodman, Emeritus Dean of International Relations at American University in an interview with VOA. With polls show terrorism is a major concern among Americans, Clinton targeted Trump's positions on the issue. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has promised to temporarily block Muslims from crossing U.S. borders. "The struggle against radical Islam also takes place in our homeland. There are scores of recent migrants inside our borders charged with terrorism. For every case known to the public, there are dozens more. We must stop importing extremism through senseless immigration policies," Trump said in a foreign policy speech in April. Trump's other anti-terrorism proposals include a pledge to torture and murder the families of suspected terrorists and target Islamic State. "I have a simple message for them," Trump said. "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where and I won't tell them how. But they will be gone. And soon." But... when will immigration policy change?  A. after Trump is elected  B. after Clinton is elected  C. not enough information  D. when America has spoken
Answer:
C