Problem:OPTIONS:
- so the writer wouldn't try to leave her go to sleep
- so the writer wouldn't go with another friend
- so the writer wouldn't get a dog friend instead
- not enough information

I think that one of the people who caused me the most misery for the longest was someone that I’ll call “Luna”. So, most people have probably met that person that acts all suicidal and then uses that against you. For example, you’re talking to someone like that and you’re having some sort of argument and the moment they realize they aren’t winning they send you pictures of their bloodied wrists and say “This is your fault”. Well, that person was my friend for a long time. Every time I would try to leave her to go to sleep she would threaten to do “something bad” and I knew what she meant, and me, first meeting her when I was around 9 or 10, and I was still extremely naive. So most of the time, I ended up staying awake til 3 AM on school nights and I would get only a few hours of sleep, and she’d be happy because her life wasn’t worsened at all. But I think the thing that made me the most miserable, was the fact that it never got better. No matter how much I talked to her, or how sympathetic I tried to be, or how much I tried to convince her to be happier, it never got better. She still acted super depressed, but like it was a joke. All of these things combined to make me completely miserable because it seemed like it was all for nothing. But I just let it happen, because she was the only person I had and she was really my only “friend” at that point, and all the way up to seventh grade. So for that entire period of time, she certainly wasn’t the only source of misery for me, but she made me feel way worse than I would have if I hadn’t been friends with her. According to the above context, answer the following question. Why did the friend say she would do something bad?
****
A: so the writer wouldn't try to leave her go to sleep


It would have to be this… Donald Trump once cashed a $0.13 check… In 1990, writer from a “Spy Magazine” had a great idea for a prank: “What would happen if you sent checks for small amounts to celebrities and saw who cashed them, putting to test the theory that every man (and woman) has a price? In their words: "We could however, send them checks for minuscule sums of money—sums so small they couldn’t fund as much as a minute of the recipients’ existence—and see who would bother to bank these teensy amounts of money." Spy thought "some subterfuge" would be necessary—it'd be suspicious to get a check from the magazine that lampooned so many of the intended recipients. This was specifically true for Trump, who Spy once famously referred to as a "short-fingered vulgarian." So, they created a fully funded and incorporated company called National Refund Clearinghouse, which allowed them to open a checking account. Then they drafted a letter explaining that the check was a refund for a small overcharge that had occurred in 1988—what the celebrities had been overcharged for was never mentioned. They sent the checks out (initially for $1.11) to 58 well-known people like Cher, Henry Kissinger, and, of course, Donald Trump. Of the 58, 26 cashed the checks—Donald included. The magazine drafted a followup letter and checks for $0.64 to those 26 people to see who would take more free money. Thirteen—including Donald Trump—deposited the checks worth two quarters, a dime, and four pennies into their banks. Then they went for one last score: in honor of those 13 people, 13 more checks for $0.13. Two people cashed them: a Saudi arms dealer named Adnan Khashoggi, and Donald Trump. Seriously.” I really don’t know if this is the most “cheapskate” thing, on just CRAZY fiscal responsibility. But if I had to pick, this would get my vote… resources: Splinter - The truth hurts According to the above context, answer the following question. Spy Magazine probably felt what about the celebrities who cashed the checks?
OPTIONS:
- that they are cheap
- that they are mean
- that they are giving
- not enough information
that they are cheap


Problem: OPTIONS:
- Thankful they were not hit
- not enough information
- Amused about the episode
- Consider it fun to continue looking for parked cars
Q: I was about 14 and lived near a large tract of undeveloped land where people would go and park to fool around. There was a dirt road through the tract, but further down, it crossed two huge concrete pipes. The dirt was washed out between them, and the deep gulch made it impossible to cross in a car. Sometimes, eight or ten of us would go looking for parked cars. If we found one or more, we would go move this incredibly heavy stump onto the road and lay a telephone pole across it. It took all of us and it was incredibly heavy. It was impossible to drive around it because of the ditches and there was no way two or three people could move it. We'd go back to the car and set off a big string of fire crackers or shake the cat and slap on it and run like crazy. We'd watch from the woods as they drove like heck and come to a screeching stop at our roadblock. The guy would get out and try to lift the pole. Never happen. Then the car would drive the other way. That wouldn't happen because of the pipes. We'd go home leaving them in there. This was before cell phones, and it was miles to a pay phone. We'd go back the next day and find the stump and pole moved. We thought it was real funny until one night we set it up and beat on the trunk of a car. A couple was inside, getting it on. We hadn't noticed a guy sitting on the hood with a bottle of booze and a pistol. As we ran, he was shooting and we could hear bullets going through the underbrush. No one was hit, thank goodness. That was the end of that stunt. According to the above context, answer the following question. How does the group (or some) of boys feel after the shooting episode?
Answer:
Thankful they were not hit