(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: How long did the trip last? Options: - not enough information   - Less time than planned   - more time than planned   - about the exact time as planned === The correct answer is
(A).
Less time than planned


(Q).
The Trump administration’s recent airstrikes in Syria – just the latest action in a long-running conflict that has challenged U.S. presidents of both parties – has prompted a new round of questions on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers are asking where last week's strikes fit in the larger U.S. strategy in response to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and for greater clarity to prevent an escalation of the conflict.  “There needs to be a comprehensive strategy here laid out by the administration for Congress in terms of the options to pursue because of the urgency,” House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce said during a House panel Wednesday. “Does the administration support imposing costs on the Russians and the Iranians for their role in the Assad regime’s war crimes against its own people?”  In his speech announcing the air strikes to the American people Friday, President Trump said the United States is “prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents.” But later Friday, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said the latest action against Assad was a “one-time shot.” Trump ordered Friday's strikes just weeks after saying the U.S. would “be coming out of Syria like very soon," reflecting changes in the administration’s posture in response to Assad’s reported use of prohibited chemical agents.  “We’re at a real risk here of conducting strikes without any clear strategy,” Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told VOA. “The Trump administration for the past several months has issued contradictory statements, with former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and some diplomats saying that the U.S. troops inside Syria, in eastern Syria, would be dedicated to also countering Iran inside Syria. The Pentagon was saying something completely different – defeating ISIS and continuing that campaign,” he said.  Trump administration officials told a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs committee Wednesday the president’s goals in Syria remain clear. Question: What is Assad currently doing to provoke reaction? Options: - He is a good man   - He likes Trump   - not enough information   - He is using chemical agents === The correct answer is
(A).
He is using chemical agents


(Q).
As many of you will have seen, unfortunately the Ubuntu Edge campaign did not reach our goal of $32million. The final total reached was $12,812,776. I am hugely proud and thankful to everyone who pledged, supported the campaign, wrote about it, and helped to spread the word. Some have described us not meeting the goal as a “failure”. I don’t see it that way. Let’s be honest: $32million was always an incredibly ambitious target. We would have liked to have done it for less money, but building a F1 superphone doesn’t come cheap (and remember that the $32million didn’t include any costs for software engineering and project management…Canonical were providing that for free). It was an ambitious target, but disrupting an industry is ambitious in itself, and we gave the crowd-funding campaign our best shot. The story does not end here though. I am not surprised that we didn’t hit this ambitious $32million target, but I am surprised at what we did achieve. We broke all the crowd-funding records, garnered media attention across CNBC, Engadget, The Independent, TechCrunch, the BBC, T3, Stuff, The Verge, The Guardian, Wired, pandodaily, Fast Company, Forbes, The Telegraph and more. Every single person who put their support into the Ubuntu Edge campaign should be proud of their achievements and we are all thankful for your tremendous and inspiring support. One thing to be critically clear about is that the Ubuntu convergence story does not end here. We are as voraciously excited and committed to bringing this Free Software convergence story to the world as ever before; our work with OEMs, Carriers, and ISVs continues apace. We have fantastic work going on across all fronts, and we are on track to have a 1.0 release of the Ubuntu Phone platform in October. Question: The author in the text believes: Options: - raising $32 million was neither hard nor easy   - raising $32 million is an incredibly ambitious target   - raising $32 million was easy   - not enough information === The correct answer is
(A).

raising $32 million is an incredibly ambitious target