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

[EX Q]: Personally I enjoy doing things outside. You know, the good ol' nature.
One time, me and my buddy Alex and some friends decided we were going to go camping. (I know, basic camping story. Well not exactly.) We planned on going for the weekend. Got to the spot and put up our tents like normal campers. But knowing myself and my friends we wanted to drink a couple beers and do some fishing. We did just that. Later that night we had started out camp fire and cooked up some links before bed time. My drunk self wanted to keep the fire going all night to prevent wild animals from coming t our sight. Well at least I thought that'd help. So I needed a bunch of wood to do so. Everyone was asleep by this point but me. So I took myself out into the woods a little deeper to grab a full broken down tree. I thought to myself, "Well if I want to utilize all of this wood I'm going to need to break it into smaller prices right?" Wrong. Well at least it was wrongful of how I planned on doing it. I attempted to break the tree in half by throwing it against another tree, as if I were as strong as the hulk or something. Once I chunked the tree at this tree I messed the entire vacation up. The tree came down on my knee and crushed it. I was in so much pain. I realized that I messed it up pretty bad so I laid there for a second trying to get back to my feet. The next day I couldn't apply any pressure and couldn't walk at all. I was dirty and smelly and needed some serious help on my leg but I was too far from any civilization. Worst nature experience ever! Question: Who went fishing?
[EX A]: The writer of the story, Alex and some friends

[EX Q]: Lancôme Juicy Tubes changed my life.
Ok, well that's a slight exaggeration but it was the first high-end make-up item that I ever bought and it made me feel like I was really getting somewhere. I'd got a good job, was in the process of buying my own house and I could afford to buy premium beauty products. I chose a transparent lemon yellow gloss with tiny flecks of iridescent glitter in, and over the following months I treated myself to several other Juicy Tube variants including a shimmery nude gloss called Pamplemousse which I wore on nights out for years (incidentally Pamplemousse is still going!).
Fast forward several (ahem…) years and Juicy Tubes are still going strong, but there's a new member of the Juicy family vying for attention – the Juicy Shaker.*. Another lip product, this one is a nourishing tinted lip oil which acts a bit like a gloss, and I was sent two of the new shades to try out – Piece of Cake and Show Me The Honey.
Juicy Shakers are a bi-phase nourishing lip oil, when the product is allowed to settle the pigment falls to the bottom and the oil rises to the top, giving a split effect. Then you need to shake the bottle to mix the two layers together, giving the product it's name. The ingredients include sweet almond oil, omega 3 and cranberry oil and really help care for your lips unlike most other glosses.
Show Me The Honey is a nude coral shade, it looks rather orange and scary in the bottle but in reality it's much more of a gentle shade. Piece of Cake is a damson pink, and again looks much darker in the bottle. I found that Piece of Cake matches almost exactly with the natural colour of my lips so it's perfect for when I want my make-up to look really pared back with glossy supple natural looking lips. Question: Which lipgloss matched the customer's lip color the closest?
[EX A]: Piece of Cake

[EX Q]: Shortly after five, the hospital called. More precisely, the emergency room phoned to ask if Ray had a bed. Ray pretended to consult his admission log, just as he always did. The nightly hospital call meant one of three things: the chemical dependency floor was full (highly unlikely), the individual in question had fallen under the hospital's "one treatment episode every three months" sanction (also known as the Black List, and only moderately unlikely), or the prospective client had no insurance (in Ray's experience, very likely).
The folks at the hospital knew, as did Ray, that federal law prohibited him from turning away individuals requesting detoxification services if he had an open bed. The hospital was generous enough to spring for a cab voucher for the intoxicate.
In Ray's experience as well, overnight admissions were less interested in detox than in free food, a free bed and complimentary meds. For his two hour paperwork investment and aggravation, he would receive the benefit of knowing the client slept until noon then slipped out the side door and into another binge. Any bills for service generated for the brief stay would return in a week or so stamped "No Such Address" or simply "Return to Sender". On average, the clients of addictions services managed to muster a raging 25% of them who would ever pay a dime toward their bill. The night shift admission payment percentages were a quarter of that quarter in good years.
Thus, the frequent calls from the hospital. They had little better luck in getting good addresses (or even with those, a client who stayed sober long enough to give a shit).
No one relished treating the uninsured and uninsurable. It was fiscal suicide. The hospital was perfectly willing to let the local experts in deadbeats handle the workload.
Tonight, Ray could tell them no. He liked telling them no, especially when it was the truth. Question: Who checked the admissions log?
[EX A]:
Ray

