In this task, you're expected to write answers to questions involving multiple references to the same entity. The answer to the question should be unambiguous and a phrase in the paragraph. Most questions can have only one correct answer.

[EX Q]: Passage: The 1919 plans incorporated a Mobile Naval Base Defence Organisation (MNBDO) which could develop and defend a forward base. The MNBDO had a strength of 7,000 and included a brigade of antiaircraft artillery, a brigade of coastal artillery and a battalion of infantry, all drawn from the Royal Marines. In one paper exercise, the Royal Marines occupied Nakagusuku Bay unopposed and the MNBDO developed a major base there from which the fleet blockaded Japan. Actual fleet exercises were conducted in the Mediterranean in the 1920s to test the MNBDO concept. However, the Royal Marines were not greatly interested in amphibious warfare, and lacking organisational backing, the techniques and tactics of amphibious warfare began to atrophy. By the 1930s the Admiralty was concerned that the United States and Japan were well ahead of Britain in this field and persuaded the Army and RAF to join with it in establishing the Inter-Service Training and Development Centre, which opened in July 1938. Under its first commandant, Captain Loben Edward Harold Maund, it began investigating the problems of amphibious warfare, including the design of landing craft.Nor was this the only field in which the Royal Navy was lagging in the 1930s. In the 1920s, Colonel the Master of Sempill led the semi-official Sempill Mission to Japan to help the Imperial Japanese Navy establish an air arm. At the time the Royal Navy was the world leader in naval aviation. The Sempill mission taught advanced techniques such as carrier deck landing, conducted training with modern aircraft, and provided engines, ordnance and technical equipment. Within a decade, Japan had overtaken Britain. The Royal Navy pioneered the armoured flight deck, which enabled carriers to absorb damage, but resulted in limiting the number of aircraft that a carrier could operate. The Royal Navy had great faith in the ability of ships' antiaircraft batteries, and so saw little need for high performance fighters. To maximise the benefit of the small numbers of aircraft that could be carried, the Royal Navy developed multi-role aircraft such as the Blackburn Roc, Fairey Fulmar, Fairey Barracuda, Blackburn Skua and Fairey Swordfish. As a result, the Royal Navy's aircraft were no match for their Japanese counterparts.The possibility of Japan taking advantage of a war in Europe was foreseen. In June 1939, the Tientsin Incident demonstrated another possibility: that Germany might attempt to take advantage of a war in the Far East. In the event of a worst-case scenario of simultaneous war with Germany, Italy and Japan, two approaches were considered. The first was to reduce the war to one against Germany and Japan only by knocking Italy out of the conflict as quickly as possible. The former First Sea Lord, Sir Reginald Drax, who was brought out of retirement to advise on strategy, called for a "flying squadron" of four or five battleships, along with an aircraft carrier, some cruisers and destroyers, to be sent to Singapore. Such a force would be too small to fight the Japanese main fleet, but could protect British trade in the Indian Ocean against commerce raiders. Drax argued that a small, fast force would be better in this role than a large, slow one. When more ships became available, it could become the nucleus of a full-sized battle fleet. Chatfield, now Minister for Coordination of Defence, disagreed with this concept. He felt that the flying squadron would become nothing more than a target for the Japanese fleet. Instead, he put forward a second approach, namely that the Mediterranean be abandoned and the fleet sent to Singapore. 
Question: What is the full name of the man who proposed sending a force that could protect British trade in the Indian Ocean?
[EX A]: Reginald Drax.

[EX Q]: Passage: Nannerl herself was an   apt pupil, no less quick to learn than her brother, and was playing the keyboard with striking virtuosity by the time she was eleven. In that year, 1762, Leopold brought the children to Munich to play before Maximilian III Joseph, Elector of Bavaria. Leopold then took the entire family to Vienna, on a trip that lasted for three months. He had secured invitations from several noble patrons, and within three days of arriving the children were playing at the palace of Count Collalto. Among those present was the Viennese Treasury councillor and future prime minister Karl von Zinzendorf, who noted in his diary that "a little boy, said to be only five-and-a-half years old [Wolfgang was actually nearly seven], played the harpsichord". After an appearance before the Imperial Vice-Chancellor, the Mozarts were invited to the royal court, where the Empress Maria Theresa tested Wolfgang's abilities by requiring him to play with the keyboard covered. During this court visit Wolfgang met the Archduchess Maria Antonia, the future Queen Marie Antoinette of France, who was two months his senior. Mozart's biographer Eric Blom recounts an anecdote of how the Archduchess helped Wolfgang when he slipped on the polished floor; she is supposed to have received a proposal of marriage in return.As the Mozarts began to be noticed by the Viennese aristocracy, they were often required to give several performances during a single day. They were well rewarded for this activity—at the end of their first hectic week in Vienna, Leopold was able to send home the equivalent of more than two years' salary. Their schedule was interrupted when Wolfgang fell ill with scarlet fever, and their former momentum was not regained. Nevertheless, the visit left Leopold eager to pursue further opportunities for social and financial success. On their return to Salzburg, Wolfgang played the harpsichord and violin at a birthday concert for the archbishop, to the evident astonishment of those present. 
Question: Who played the keyboard with striking virtuosity?
[EX A]: Wolfgang.

[EX Q]: Passage: The Oirat leader Esen Tayisi launched an invasion into Ming China in July 1449. The chief eunuch Wang Zhen encouraged the Zhengtong Emperor (r. 1435–49) to lead a force personally to face the Oirats after a recent Ming defeat; the emperor left the capital and put his half-brother Zhu Qiyu in charge of affairs as temporary regent. On 8 September, Esen routed Zhengtong's army, and Zhengtong was captured – an event known as the Tumu Crisis. The Oirats held the Zhengtong Emperor for ransom. However, this scheme was foiled once the emperor's younger brother assumed the throne under the era name Jingtai (r. 1449–57); the Oirats were also repelled once the Jingtai Emperor's confidant and defense minister Yu Qian (1398–1457) gained control of the Ming armed forces. Holding the Zhengtong Emperor in captivity was a useless bargaining chip for the Oirats as long as another sat on his throne, so they released him back into Ming China. The former emperor was placed under house arrest in the palace until the coup against the Jingtai Emperor in 1457 known as the "Wresting the Gate Incident". The former emperor retook the throne under the new era name Tianshun (r. 1457–64).
Tianshun proved to be a troubled time and Mongol forces within the Ming military structure continued to be problematic. On 7 August 1461, the Chinese general Cao Qin and his Ming troops of Mongol descent staged a coup against the Tianshun Emperor out of fear of being next on his purge-list of those who aided him in the Wresting the Gate Incident. Cao's rebel force managed to set fire to the western and eastern gates of the Imperial City (doused by rain during the battle) and killed several leading ministers before his forces were finally cornered and he was forced to commit suicide.While the Yongle Emperor had staged five major offensives north of the Great Wall against the Mongols and the Oirats, the constant threat of Oirat incursions prompted the Ming authorities to fortify the Great Wall from the late 15th century to the 16th century; nevertheless, John Fairbank notes that "it proved to be a futile military gesture but vividly expressed China's siege mentality." Yet the Great Wall was not meant to be a purely defensive fortification; its towers functioned rather as a series of lit beacons and signalling stations to allow rapid warning to friendly units of advancing enemy troops. 
Question: What is the name of the fortification whose towers functioned as a series of lit beacons and signalling stations to allow rapid warning to friendly units of advancing enemy troops?
[EX A]:
the Great Wall.