Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Years back, following a transition inside a large company where many people got fired and moved around, the decision was made to give the remaining people more work. Now, let me pause here, when I say, "more work" did not mean more of the existing work they already did. "More work" did not mean work of what they already knew, or signed up for when they were hired. More work meant incorporating a completely different role. For me, I'm a programmer. And "management" decided they wanted programmers to also do BA work. Now, mind you, nowhere on my employment contract does it state I'd have to take a BA role. And nowhere on my employment contract did it state taking a BA role would also require me doing all of my programming work. So, after being pushed a few times to attend BA meetings, I got fed up. So I pulled my manager into a meeting and explained this to him. I said, you have two choices: I do two roles, BA and programmer, and I get a new salary to account for the role. When he asked how much, I said, take my salary and multiply by 1.6. Option 2, I go back to programming, and you never pull me into a meeting again on BA work. It's not what you hired me for, and it's not what you pay me for. When my boss replied, "Our company is not in the position to pay for two roles", I told him, then it sounds like Option 2. And by the way, I don't ever want to have this discussion again. If you want Superman performance, you cannot pay Clark Kent wages. 1 year passed and I was never bothered again about BA roles. Takeaways: Middle managers are one step above one-celled organisms. They can, and will try to get you to do non-role work, with no intention of ever paying you more. They key is to cut it off at the pass. Question: Why didn't he want to do BA work? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- Because he didn't like it
- Because it's not what he was hired or paid to do
- not enough information
- He didn't want to attend meetings for it anymore

Answer: Because it's not what he was hired or paid to do

Problem: OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Bucharest
- McDonalds
- Hollywood
Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: The Transylvanian city of Brasov is usually just a day trip from Bucharest. People spend maybe an hour or so to wandering around the town square, and buy a drink before hopping back on their transport back to the capital city of Romania. But, thanks to an epic tip-off from the travel ninja Shikha at Why Waste Annual Leave and a few other Brasov devotees, instead of following the crowds, we booked a couple of leisurely nights there. At the end of our day trip, instead of returning to Bucharest and getting stuck in the Sunday evening traffic, we checked into our hotel and waved our guide off. Yes, you can easily 'do' Brasov in an afternoon it's a popular stop off at the end of a day trip after visiting the "home" of Dracula Bran castle, and the beautiful Peles castle but having the leisure to linger was exquisite. In addition to trying local dishes, we also ate lunch at McDonalds. Yes, yes, as a blogger we shouldn't pretend to eat anything other than caviar washed down with champagne and unicorn tears, but we were hungry and couldn't be bothered to find somewhere. (For the record, we both opted for a Big Mac and a diet coke.) For the first half day, we wandered around whilst the skies were beautifully blue learned a lot of local history, admired the Hollywood style sign in the hills slipped into a couple of churches (not to mention dodged giggling kids racing around on miniature cars) some hidden, and some hidden in plain sight and admired the sign from our cosy hotel, as it lit up at twilight Our only full day dawned fairly murky for the most part, it was a Sunday so a lot of things were closed, so after hitting 20,000 steps and getting lost a few times in the less pretty corners of the city Question: Where did the blogger go before visiting Brasov? Answer:
Answer: Bucharest

input with options: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: David Gauntlett makes a good point in his newest book (Making Media Studies: The Creativity Turn in Media and Communications Studies) and that is that traditional forms of media studies are no longer applicable. Gone are the days of massive institutions and production companies, gone are the traditional audiences and simplistic texts. In, is the new age media companies, the everyday media makers, the consistent consumers and the fantastical mess of The WWW. While universities are pumping out the same content areas since the 1980's (e.g. institutions, production, audiences and texts) that are only relevant to a handful of media forms (cinema, television, online broadcasting and publications), the rest of the world is moving on. David Gauntlett so rightly says that creativity in media, should also refer to thinking creatively about the subject. What are the new ways of running media and communication studies? How has the subject itself changed? What approaches and methods can help media and communications studies to become innovative and useful in spheres beyond itself? David Gauntlett encourages a kind of call to arms, an acquiescence of the incapacities of the old system and a redirected gaze to the future needs of media students and media studies programs. Inspired by Tim Ingold's book Making, David believes media studies should have making at it's front and centre. He also believes the ability to do things with media should be embraced over and above the ability to talk about what others do with media, or what media does to us. The notion is that media studies should be hands on, that it should be all about ideas and critical engagement and this should be expressed through actual making. To borrow three key distinctions from the anthropologist Tim Ingold: 1. It's about learning WITH media rather than ABOUT media. 2. There is an intent to move FORWARD rather than looking BACKWARDS at how things are. 3. It's aims are TRANSFORMATIONAL rather than DOCUMENTARY. Question: Why was David making a good point? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- Because he saw the days of massive institutions were gone
- Because he is stupid
- Because he is smart
- not enough information
output:
Because he saw the days of massive institutions were gone