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: When Mary Beekman loses her waitress job, after a fight with her loutish boyfriend, trucker Mike O'Reilly she stands at a bridge on a windy night, losing her pay check through a windblown and leans over the guardrail of the bridge to catch it. Socialite Kenneth Alden catches her, thinking she wants to jump the bridge. He's lost everything that is not already mortgaged. Both down on their luck, they assume that the other is there to jump off the bridge.
Instead, Mary has an idea. If Ken sells shares to a syndicate of his wealthy friends, in a phoney beauty product, they'll have enough money for some clothes to pass Mary off in society, long enough to meet and marry a wealthy bachelor. Then, they can pay everyone back, with interest. The con might work, except that Ken has too much integrity to marry for money to Clarissa (whom he loves for years), and Mary is beginning to see his point when she falls for Pat, who has secrets of his own.
The plot boils over when Mike shows up to blow the lid off. Pat's valet is a thief, who promised not to act foolishly. But he escapes with a stolen Tiara. Meantime Mary thinks to leave as things do not work out, so she shares the taxi to the station with Pat's valet escaping with the Tiara. After a police chase, Mary is hauled off to the station.
It looks like no one is going to end up with anything, but a bad reputation; but, it's not over yet, in this curious, romantic comedy, about the social set, in 1930's America, from Chesterfield films. 
Question: What is the full name of the person who wanted Ken to sell beauty product shares to his friends?
[EX A]: Mary Beekman.

[EX Q]: Passage: When Matt moved to Hollywood he made a pact with himself that if he wasn't a working actor in exactly seven years he'd quit the business and move back to Washington, DC. As the film opens Matt finds himself seven days shy of his self-prescribed deadline, and he's just as anonymous as the day he arrived into town. After an afternoon of soul searching in the mountains he decides to honor his deadline, and plans to spend his final week in Hollywood visiting friends to tell them he's leaving for good and that he'll have a going away party to cap it all off.
With a couple days left before his going away party and tension mounting, Matt visits his eclectic mix of friends and people who have affected him over the years. Despite intending to tell them he's quitting the business, he chickens out, not quite being able to bring himself to tell them. 
On the night of the going away party he starts to think he's been stood up by everyone he thought he cared about and thought cared about him. But finally Dylan shows, then Robert, Amanda, JR - even Mylo, which means a great deal to Matt - and before long all the people he's visited over the past week are at the party. Amid drinks and music each friend stands up and gives their "goodbye Matt" speeches, making it clear that even though Matt's leaving he'll never be forgotten; he may be giving up on his dreams but he's been a good friend and helped a lot of people. In the middle of Matt's going away speech Sara pops in, looking beautiful, and Matt becomes so shocked and tongue-tied that he has to cut his speech short and take Sara out back alone. It is here that Matt asks her bluntly: "If I stay in Hollywood would you be with me?" She shakes her head. This is the final straw. There's officially nothing keeping him in Los Angeles. Matt is emasculated, and now more inspired than ever to leave Los Angeles in his rear view mirror. He heads back into the party to say his final goodbyes. 
Question: Who is the going away party for?
[EX A]: Matt.

[EX Q]: Passage: Given the standings of the two men, the painting was received in both social and political terms. A number of writers mentioned Bertin's eventful career, in tones that were, according to art historian Andrew Carrington Shelton, either "bitingly sarcastic [or] fawningly reverential". There were many satirical reproductions and pointed editorials in the following years. Aware of Bertin's support of the July Monarchy, writers at the La Gazette de France viewed the portrait as the epitome of the "opportunism and cynicism" of the new regime. Their anonymous critic excitedly wondered "what bitter irony it expresses, what hardened skepticism, sarcasm and ... pronounced cynicism".Several critics mentioned Bertin's hands. Twentieth-century art historian Albert Boime described them as "powerful, vulturine ... grasping his thighs in a gesture ... projecting ... enormous strength controlled". Some contemporary critics were not so kind. The photographer and critic Félix Tournachon was harshly critical, and disparaged what he saw as a "fantastical bundle of flesh ... under which, instead of bones and muscles, there can only be intestines – this flatulent hand, the rumbling of which I can hear!" Bertin's hands made a different impression on the critic F. de Lagenevais, who remarked: "A mediocre artist would have modified them, he would have replaced those swollen joints with the cylindrical fingers of the first handy model; but by this single alteration he would have changed the expression of the whole personality ... the energetic and mighty nature".The work's realism attracted a large amount of commentary when it was first exhibited. Some saw it as an affront to Romanticism, others said that its small details not only showed an acute likeness, but built a psychological profile of the sitter. Art historian Geraldine Pelles sees Bertin as "at once intense, suspicious, and aggressive". She notes that there is a certain amount of projection of the artist's personality and recalls Théophile Silvestre's description of Ingres; "There he was squarely seated in an armchair, motionless as an Egyptian god carved of granite, his hands stretched wide over parallel knees, his torso stiff, his head haughty". Some compared it to Balthasar Denner, a German realist painter influenced by Jan van Eyck. Denner, in the words of Ingres scholar Robert Rosenblum, "specialised in recording every last line on the faces of aged men and women, and even reflections of windows in their eyes." The comparison was made by Ingres' admirers and detractors alike. In 1833, Louis de Maynard of the Collège-lycée Ampère, writing in the influential L'Europe littéraire, dismissed Denner as a weak painter concerned with hyperrealistic "curiosities", and said that both he and Ingres fell short of the "sublime productions of Ingres' self-proclaimed hero, Raphael."The following year Ingres sought to capitalise on the success of his Bertin portrait. He showed his ambitious history painting The Martyrdom of Saint Symphorian at the 1834 Salon, but it was harshly criticised; even Ingres' admirers offered only faint praise. Offended and frustrated, Ingres declared he would disown the Salon, abandon his residence in Paris for Rome, and relinquish all current positions, ending his role in public life. This petulance was not to last.Bertin bequeathed the portrait to his daughter Louise (1805–1877) on his death. She passed it to her niece Marie-Louise-Sophie Bertin (1836–1893) wife of Jules Bapst, a later director of the Journal des débats. They bequeathed it to their niece Cécile Bapst, its last private owner. In 1897 Cécile sold it to the Musée du Louvre for 80,000 francs. 
Question: What was the first name of the person who passed a painting to their niece Marie-Louise-Sophie Bertin?
[EX A]:
Louise.