In this task, you need to write an incorrect answer to the given question. Along with the question, you are also given the correct answer(s) and the associated paragraph. An incorrect answer should be closely related to the content of the paragraph and/or the question but will not truthfully answer the question. Your incorrect answers should be similar to the given correct answer such that it will pose a challenge for students to distinguish the two. A good incorrect answer should prevent those who skip the paragraph from answering the question. The incorrect answer should not be trivial, in the sense that they should not be easily eliminated without reading the paragraph.
Example: Paragraph- Sent 1: It was hot that day.
Sent 2: The temperature on the wall of the backyard was showing something well over 100 F.
Sent 3: Meanwhile Tom, at home, was trying finish the remainder of carrots from last night, and packing for his trip to Chicago tomorrow.
Sent 4: As employees of the Art Museum, Tom and his older cousin often had to travel to Chicago. Question: What was the temperature outside, when Tom was eating carrots? Correct Answer: well over 100 F.
Example solution: Not very hot.
Example explanation: This is a good incorrect answer, as most of the the words of this answer appear in the the paragraph. They are also related to the content of the question (temperature), yet do not answer the question correctly. Consequently, one has to carefully read the paragraph understand that "not very hot" does not answer the question.

Problem: Paragraph- Sent 1: Iwasaki's careful respect for the Long Beach program and its lawyers earned him the political capital he needed to complete his takeover in a matter of weeks.
Sent 2: "The Long Beach program had strong support in the community so in a situation like that, one has to recognize that it's not like a takeover where I have all the answers and I know best," Iwasaki said.
Sent 3: "The people in the community who are working there have the contacts and the knowledge that will allow service to continue."Sent 4: Things have gone less smoothly across town.
Sent 5: There, Dudovitz, a longtime poverty lawyer and executive director of the San Fernando Valley's 36-year-old legal aid program, continues to struggle with his hostile takeover of the neighboring San Gabriel-Pomona Valleys service area one year after it was accomplished.
Sent 6: On the bright side, Dudovitz has extended his respected program to clients in the San Gabriel-Pomona Valley, and he now operates on a much larger budget, $6.5 million last year.
Sent 7: However, his clash with the old San Gabriel program resulted in litigation, bitter feelings and a mission that some say is not clearly focused on serving poor people.
Sent 8: "It was a difficult situation that was probably mishandled by everyone," a longtime observer of the public interest community said of the San Fernando Valley-San Gabriel-Pomona Valley merger.
Sent 9: "There are very few people who come out as the heroes.
Sent 10: Personalities got involved when they shouldn't have.
Sent 11: Things were said that caused bad feelings and couldn't be unsaid."Sent 12: Iwasaki's merger with the smaller, 48-year-old Long Beach program was friendly and fast, and no one - not even Long Beach board members - lost a job.
Sent 13: When it was over, Iwasaki had $1 million more in federal dollars and two new offices.
Sent 14: Long Beach clients regained services they had lost years ago when federal budget cuts and dwindling grants reduced the staff of 15 lawyers to five and cut immigration and consumer law programs.
Sent 15: Iwasaki said, "[I judged the transition] better than I could have hoped for.". 
Question: In the eyes of the public interest community, was Dudovitz's hostile takeover well-handled?.

Solution: Handled Well.