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. How long did it probably take the house to approve deal? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - three days - two days - a day - not enough information
Answer: a day

Question: It has become increasingly common for academics to use social media to communicate with wider audiences. Twitter, like many other social platforms, typically measures success in terms of numbers of followers, likes and retweets, but this only tells us something about the spreading of messages but not necessarily whether the content of the messages is understood or embraced. One way to ascertain this is through network and language analysis, which, used together, can tell us how effective the communication is. Economists tweet less, mention fewer people and have fewer conversations with strangers than a comparable group of experts in the sciences, and use less accessible language with words that are more complex, with more abbreviations and with a more distant tone. Their tweets are less personal and less inclusive than those used by scientists. This is what appeared in April 2017 when we gathered data on tens of thousands of tweets from the Twitter accounts of both the top 25 economists and 25 scientists as identified by IDEAS and Science, including the top three economists at the time, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Erik Brynjolfsson and, on the other side, the top three scientists, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, and Richard Dawkins. At that time those accounts covered roughly two thirds of all the following. The timing is significant because 2016 has been declared the year of post-truth politics, the year in which appeals to emotions (pathos) superseded the significance of factual evidence-based information (logos), affecting people’s constructions and interpretations of events. This has been accompanied by the growing prominence of political “alt” movements (e.g. UKIP, the Alt-right) and their aggressive, provocative, and populist narratives, and “fake news” leading to political shock events such as Brexit and the Trump election. The relatively low traction of economists in these public debates has been and continues to be an important issue. Does the public not trust economists? Don’t they understand... What is true about the economics guys? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - People listen to them - not enough information - They change how they speak online - They post about economics
Answer: They post about economics

Question: I was one of the best fingerprint examiners in the world. I could do things the FBI thought impossible. I could memorize fingerprints. The nearby agencies, including local offices of federal agencies that had their own labs, came to me for help. One day in a trial a new-hatched defence attorney tried to make me seem neglectful because I hadn't sent the prints from the crime scene to the FBI for verification. The FBI will not look at prints that have already been identified locally. I tried to get that across to him. Finally I said, “Sir, you don't understand. I don't ask the FBI for help. The FBI asks me for help.” The courtroom went dead silent. The lawyer choked a bit and looked frantically at the judge, who knew me quite well. The judge slowly nodded. The lawyer choked a few more times, said, “No further questions,” and returned to his seat. I was the only person in the five-state area in which the silver burglar was hitting who got him on fingerprint evidence. He never left fingerprint evidence . . . except when he did. Every other police agency quit looking, because his MO was unmistakable. We didn't. A detective got prints from a bamboo tree he had used to climb in a window, and I got several prints from items he had handled inside the house. After the trial he was being led back to the jail and I was walking down the hall. He stopped and said, “I want to talk to that lady.” The bailiff told him he couldn't talk to the witness, but I said I wanted to hear what he had to say. He said, “Lady, you're the smartest cop I ever saw, and I hope to God I never see you again.” I think that was the best compliment I ever got. I have other accomplishments. But I consider my police work the most important. What could the fingerprint examiner memorize? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - fingerprints - not enough information - case facts - suspect profiles
Answer:
fingerprints