You will be given a summary of a story. You need to create a question that can be answered from the story. You can create a question about characters, events, facts and beliefs, etc. Your question should be specific, try not to use pronouns instead of full names. As the stories are sometimes movie plots, they will contain actor names in parentheses. You should not use those names. Only use character names. Try to ask a question about all parts of the plot, not just the beginning.

 In an upscale New York City mansion, wealthy and popular teenager Kathryn Merteuil (Gellar) is discussing her prep school with Mrs. Caldwell (Christine Baranski) and Mrs. Caldwell's daughter Cecile (Selma Blair). Kathryn promises Mrs. Caldwell that she will look out for the sheltered and na ve Cecile. Kathryn's step-brother Sebastian (Phillippe) enters the room, whereupon Mrs. Caldwell reacts to him coldly and leaves with Cecile. Kathryn reveals to him that her real intention is to use Cecile to take revenge on her ex-lover Court Reynolds, who had dumped her for Cecile. Kathryn asks Sebastian to seduce Cecile; he refuses as he is planning to seduce Annette Hargrove (Witherspoon), the virgin daughter of their school's new headmaster. Annette is a 'paradigm of chastity and virtue' who recently wrote a published essay about saving herself for marriage and has been temporarily staying with Sebastian's aunt. The two make a wager: if Sebastian fails to bed Annette, Kathryn gets Sebastian's vintage Jaguar XK140; if he succeeds, Kathryn will have sex with him. It is mentioned that Sebastian keeps a journal detailing his conquests.
Sebastian's first attempt to seduce Annette fails, as she had already been told of his reputation as a womanizer. He vents to his friend, Blaine Tuttle (Joshua Jackson). Blaine suggests that the informant might be Annette's ex-boyfriend and closeted jock, Greg McConnell (Eric Mabius), revealing to Sebastian that Greg tried to make a pass at him. He uses that to seduce Greg while being secretly filmed by Sebastian. Sebastian confronts Greg with the photographs, but he denies warning Annette. Greg is pressured into investigating who did, and Sebastian also orders him to present him in a good light to Annette. Later, while gushing about Sebastian to Annette, Greg discovers that the culprit is Cecile's mother, Mrs. Caldwell. Wanting revenge on the Caldwells, Sebastian agrees to seduce Cecile.
Meanwhile, Cecile's music teacher, Ronald Clifford (Sean Patrick Thomas), is in love with her. Cecile confesses this to Kathryn. Kathryn tells Mrs. Caldwell about Ronald and Cecile's romance and Mrs. Caldwell orders Cecile to end it. Sebastian, in turn, calls Cecile to his house, ostensibly to give her a letter from Ronald. There he blackmails Cecile in order to perform oral sex on her. The next day, Cecile confides in Kathryn, who advises her to learn from Sebastian so that she can make Ronald happy in bed.
Sebastian begins to fall in love with Annette, who returns his feelings but still resists him. Sebastian calls her a hypocrite because she claims to be waiting for her one true love, but when her one true love chooses to love her back, she resists. She relents, but Sebastian refuses her, confused about his feelings colliding with his stolid sexuality. Annette flees to the estate of her friend's parents. Sebastian tracks her down, professes his love, and makes love to her. As he has won the bet, Kathryn offers herself to Sebastian the next day, but he refuses; he now only wants Annette. Kathryn taunts him and threatens to ruin Annette's reputation, so Sebastian pretends indifference to Annette and coldly breaks up with her.
After Sebastian tells Kathryn that he has broken up with Annette and arranged for Cecile and Ronald to be together, Kathryn reveals that she has known all along that he was truly in love with Annette and manipulated him into giving her up. Sebastian angrily dismisses Kathryn, saying he no longer wants her, and she then rejects him. Sebastian leaves to confront Annette, and Kathryn calls Ronald, telling him that Sebastian slept with Cecile and lying to him that Sebastian hit her. Annette refuses Sebastian's apologies; he sends her his journal, in which he has detailed all of Kathryn's manipulative schemes as well as their bet, and written the true feelings he had for Annette all along. As he heads home, Ronald intercepts him on the street, starting a fight. Annette runs out and tries to stop it, but is accidentally thrown into the way of traffic. Sebastian pushes her to safety, and is hit by a cab. Before he dies, Sebastian and Annette profess their love for each other. Watching this, Ronald realizes that Kathryn lied to him and used him to hurt Sebastian.
At Sebastian's funeral, Cecile distributes copies of his journal, made into a book by Annette, titled Cruel Intentions. Kathryn is humiliated and rejected by her former friends, and her reputation is ruined when cocaine is discovered in her rosary. In the final scene, Annette drives away in Sebastian's car with his journal at her side as she remembers the moments they shared.
How does Sebastian approach Greg with his suspicions?

 On October 30, Devil's Night in Detroit, Police Sergeant Albrecht (Ernie Hudson) is at the scene of a crime where Shelly Webster (Sofia Shinas) has been beaten and raped, and her fianc  Eric Draven (Brandon Lee) then died on the street outside, having been stabbed, shot, and thrown out of the window. The couple were to be married the following day, on Halloween. As he leaves for the hospital with Shelly, Albrecht meets a young girl, Sarah, who says that she is their friend, and that they take care of her. Albrecht tells her that Shelly is dying.
One year later, a crow taps on the grave stone of Eric Draven; Eric awakens and climbs out of his grave. Meanwhile, a low level street gang, headed by T-Bird (David Patrick Kelly), is setting fires in the city. Eric goes to his old apartment and finds it derelict. He has flashbacks to the murders, remembering that those responsible were T-Bird and his gang: Tin Tin, Funboy, and Skank. Eric soon discovers that any wounds he receives heal immediately. Guided by the crow, he sets out to avenge his and Shelly's murders by killing the perpetrators.
The crow helps Eric locate Tin Tin; Eric kills him by stabbing him in each vital organ (in alphabetical order) with his own knives and then takes his coat. He then goes to the pawn shop where Tin Tin pawned Shelly's engagement ring the year before. Eric forces the owner, Gideon, to return the ring. Eric then tosses rings telling Gideon each of them is a life, a life Gideon helped destroy. He lets Gideon live so that he can warn the others, but when Gideon calls Eric street grease, he says, "Is that gasoline I smell?". Terrified, Gideon runs out and Eric blows up the shop, just as Gideon barely escapes. Eric finds Funboy getting high with Sarah's drug-addict mother, Darla. After killing Funboy with an overdose of morphine, Eric talks to Darla, taking the drug out of her arm seemingly by magic and making her realize that Sarah needs her to be a good mother. He visits Albrecht, explaining who he is and why he is here. Albrecht tells him what he knows about Shelly's death and that he watched as she suffered for thirty hours before dying. Eric touches Albrecht and receives from him the pain felt by Shelly during those hours. Sarah and her mother begin to repair their strained relationship. Sarah goes to Eric's apartment and talks to him. She tells him that she misses him and Shelly. Eric explains that, even though they cannot be friends anymore, he still cares about her.
As T-Bird and Skank stop at a convenience store to pick up some supplies, Eric arrives and kidnaps T-Bird. Skank follows the pair to the docks and witnesses Eric kill T-Bird by tying him to the driver's seat of his car and forcing him to drive it off the edge of the pier where it explodes and sinks into the harbour. Skank escapes and goes to Top Dollar, a top-level criminal who controls all the street gangs in the city. Top Dollar and his lover/half-sister Myca have become aware of Eric's actions through various reports from witnesses. Top Dollar holds a meeting with his associates where they discuss new plans for their Devil's Night criminal activities. Eric arrives looking for Skank. A gun fight ensures the deaths of nearly all present, and Eric kills Skank by throwing him out of a window. Top Dollar, Myca, and Grange, Top Dollar's right-hand man, escape.
Eric, having finished his quest, returns to his grave. Sarah goes to say goodbye to him and he gives her Shelly's engagement ring. She is abducted by Grange, who takes her into the church where Top Dollar and Myca are waiting. Through the crow, Eric realizes what has happened and goes to rescue her. Grange shoots the crow as it flies into the church, making Eric lose his invincibility. Myca grabs the wounded crow, intending to take its mystical power. Albrecht arrives, intending to pay his respects to Eric, just after Eric is shot and wounded. Top Dollar grabs Sarah and climbs the bell tower as a fight ensues, and Grange is killed by Albrecht. The crow escapes Myca's grip, pecking her eyes out and sending her down the bell tower to her death. When Albrecht is wounded, Eric climbs to the roof of the church on his own. There, Top Dollar admits ultimate responsibility for what happened to Eric and Shelly. In their fight, Eric, despite being fatally stabbed in the back, gives Top Dollar the thirty hours of pain he absorbed from Albrecht; the sensation sends Top Dollar over the roof of the church to be impaled on the horns of a gargoyle. Sarah and Albrecht go to the hospital, and Eric is reunited with Shelley at their graves. Sarah ends the film with a narration: "If the people we love are stolen from us, the way to have them live on is to never stop loving them. Buildings burn, people die, but real love is forever."
How much time passes between Eric's death and resurrection?

 Greenleaf begins his book by arguing for the need to suspend prejudices and to be open to conviction, "to follow the truth wherever it may lead us" (p. 1). He cites Bishop Daniel Wilson's Evidences by stating that Christianity does not "bring irresistible evidence" but offers sufficient evidences for "the serious inquirer" (p. 2). He limits the scope of his book to an inquiry "to the testimony of the Four Evangelists, bringing their narratives to the tests to which other evidence is subjected in human tribunals" (p. 2). His specific inquiry is concerned with testing "the veracity of these witnesses by the same rules and means" employed in human tribunals (p. 3). Greenleaf argues the case by first inquiring as to the genuineness of the four gospels as ancient writings. Here he applies what is known in law as the ancient documents rule, stating that "Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise" (p. 7). Greenleaf maintains that the Four Gospels do not bear any marks of being forgeries and the oldest extant copies may be received into court as genuine documents.
Greenleaf proceeds to argue that "In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs" (p. 9). On the basis of this legal rule, Greenleaf briefly profiles those traditionally attributed as authors of the Four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, concerning (in the case of John and Matthew) their firsthand knowledge of the life of Jesus of Nazareth and (in the case of Mark and Luke) their intimate personal links with Jesus' original band of disciples.
Greenleaf then builds a cumulative case by claiming to cross-examine the oral testimony of the evangelists in their accounts of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Greenleaf develops his case on the basis of the following tests:
"The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances" (p. 28).
Greenleaf then argues that the gospel writers can be shown to be honest in their character and do not show any motives to falsify their testimony (pp. 28 31). He claims that keen observations and meticulous details are related by Matthew and Luke, and he concludes this demonstrates their ability (pp. 31 32). Greenleaf notes that there are parallel accounts from the evangelists concerning the central events of Jesus' life and that these accounts are not verbally identical. He maintains that discrepancies in their accounts are evidence that the writers are not guilty of collusion, and that the discrepancies in their respective accounts can be resolved or harmonized upon careful cross-examination and comparison of the details (pp 32 35). Greenleaf argues against the scepticism of the Scottish empirical philosopher David Hume concerning reports of miracles. He finds fault with Hume's position about "immutable laws from the uniform course of human experience" (p. 36), and goes on to assert that it is a fallacy because "it excludes all knowledge derived by inference or deduction from facts, confining us to what we derive from experience alone" (pp. 37 38). Greenleaf takes as his own assumption that as God exists then such a being is capable of performing miracles. He then argues that the various miracles reported in Jesus' ministry occurred in open or public contexts where friend and foe alike were witnesses (pp 39 42). Lastly, Greenleaf examines the problem of uniform testimony among false and genuine witnesses, and finds there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the accounts of the Four Evangelists.
Greenleaf sums up his argument with the following plea:
"All that Christianity asks of men on this subject, is, that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat its evidences as they treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with the surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if it were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witnesses being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability and truth ... Either the men of Galilee were men of superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of deeper skill in the arts of deception, than any and all others, before or after them, or they have truly stated the astonishing things which they saw and heard" (pp. 46 & 53).

Who says we should suspend prejudices and be open to conviction?