NOT A PROBLEM: Person A: I was really surprised to learn that your mum used to live in Wales. Person B: My mum? No, she never did that. You must be thinking of someone else. Person A: No, I’m not. I told her how my parents are from Cardiff and she said she’d lived in Newport until she was 18. Person B: She did not. Person A: Yes, she did. Person B: Nope. She’d have told me. Person A: Well, where do you think she grew up, then? Person B: In Yorkshire, of course. Like the rest of us. Person A: You’re wrong, you know. Person B: Bet I’m not. Person A: OK, well, I’m going to phone her and ask her. You’ll see. PROBLEM: Person C: You still have my Kindle. Person D: I do not. I gave it back to you two weeks ago. Person C: No, you didn’t. You said you were going to, but you never actually gave it to me. Person D: I did. I remember. It was when we were having lunch in Starbucks. Person C: No, that’s when you said you’d left it in your car and would get it when we’d finished eating but then you forgot all about it. Person D: Look, I gave it back to you. I think you’re just trying to get a new Kindle out of me, and let me tell you: it ain’t gonna work. Person C: You’re just trying to keep my Kindle for yourself. Well, I’m not going to let you get away with it. I’m going to tell your mum, so there. It really depends whether the parents are in a position to shed any light on the contentious issue or if involving them would just make an awkward situation worse. If parental input will be helpful, welcome the chance to confer with them; if it won’t, let the other person do what they will and trust your parents to have more sense than to get involved in a purely private argument. According to the above context, answer the following question. After the end of this story how did Person D feel toward person C?
OPTIONS:
- Person D was excited about the relationship with person C
- not enough information
- Person D was upset with Person C
- Person D was friendly with Person C

Answer: Person D was upset with Person C


Question: The U.S. Congress is one step closer to averting a government shutdown Thursday after the U.S. House easily passed a $1.3 trillion spending plan that would end months of the government operating under short-term spending bills. The measure, approved by a 256-167 vote, now goes to the Senate, which has until midnight Friday to approve it and avert the year’s third government closure. The massive bipartisan bill would keep the government funded until the end of September. Lawmakers had just hours to read the nearly 2,200-page bill released Wednesday night. Under Senate rules, a single senator can delay the vote but not stop it entirely. Senator Rand Paul has objected to the short time given to members to read the lengthy legislation. As of Thursday afternoon, the Senate was waiting to see how the vote would proceed, raising the prospect of another brief government shutdown.  With midterm elections looming in November, the bill likely marks the final time Capitol Hill will consider major legislation this year. The measure would fulfill President Donald Trump’s vow to boost military funding but provides funding for limited parts of his immigration agenda. The bill, which the White House said Trump supports, would give Trump a huge budget increase for the military, including a 2.4 percent pay raise for military personnel. “Today marks the beginning of a new era for the United States military,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement Thursday. “This legislation fulfills our pledge to rebuild the United States military.” After extensive negotiations between Republicans and Democrats, the bill also provides $1.6 billion for physical barriers and 150 kilometers (93 miles) of a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, short of the $25 billion Trump requested for the project he repeatedly touted on the campaign trail while pledging Mexico would pick up the cost. According to the above context, answer the following question. Why was there still a possibility of a shutdown?
OPTIONS:
- the bill was approved for too much money
- the senate still had to vote by the deadline
- the senate still had to vote when they could make arrangements
- not enough information
Answer: the senate still had to vote by the deadline


Question: It's axiomatic that all cultures reserve a special place for food in their daily and social lives. For something as simple as a cuppa joe, we schedule and juggle our time to meet at predetermined locations to share conversation and libation. Meals require even more effort and the social ramifications increase. One is expected to show up on time, sometimes dress to certain standards and bring one or many bottles of wine as a thoughtful gift to the hosts. And of course, the food is just an excuse to get together with friends to enjoy a meal, share stories, to discuss or seduce, to seal an agreement or act as a prelude to a severance of relations (frequently unintentionally). I was first introduced to dining for pleasure as opposed to sustenance while at the University of New Brunswick. I lived in Bridges House, one of the men's residences. The young, eager, bright-eyed students in each residence were kept more or less in check by a Don. Each residence had its share of maniacs and troublemakers who were at university to get some form of education, alcohol poisoning or a social disease; sometimes all three. The Don's job was to act as a mentor and prison warden. Imagine a building housing up to 100 young adult men. It doesn't take much to start a riot. In our case, the Don was Locutus. When we met him, he must have been in his forties but looked to us adolescents to be older than Father Time. He was immediately dubbed 'Grandpa Munster'. With the tender sensitivity of males of our age, we didn't bother to hide this from him and he took it in good humour. In point of fact, Locutus was a great Don; firm when he needed to be and understanding and helpful as appropriate. You crossed this guy at your peril, but he was generally pretty tolerant. According to the above context, answer the following question. Who was in charge of the housing:
OPTIONS:
- All of the residences were in charge
- not enough information
- The author
- The Don
Answer:
The Don