I remember back in the late 1970's when I first started investing in property as a young guy, being taken to a house that felt EXTREMELY cold, strange, and rather chilling. Okay it was an older house that need some renovation work, but there was something about the place that just did not seem right. But despite that, it was available for purchase at what seemed to be a very attractive price always a good starting point. Anyway, the real estate agent finished taking me around the property answering the questions that I had, and I left with a plan to do some costings before making a decision. But something was niggling me and making me feel a little uncomfortable, so I decided to investigate the property further. A couple of days later I was around at a friends house. He was in the Police force and as it happened he was in the same neighbourhood, I mentioned this particular property that I was looking at buying. He asked me the actual address after which he 'kindly' informed me that that that house had been the scene of a murder 6 months previously. It turned out that the property had been rented to a homosexual couple and that after an argument, one had murdered the other in the bath and then proceeded to cut his head off. Apparently the head was subsequently discovered a week later in the trunk of a car that had been abandoned up by a local golf-course. Less than impressed that the real estate agent had been less than forthcoming with me, I made the decision to not to proceed with the purchase. As they say in the property business 'Location, Location, Location' is always an important factor in determining the value of a property. However despite that being a good location, it was reputation that deterred me on that occasion. Sometimes there are situations where even the best makeover will not work. Question: Who told him about the murder at the property? Options: A. Real estate agent B. Homeowner C. not enough information D. Friend === The correct answer is
D

(Question)
WHITE HOUSE A controversial clothing choice is overshadowing a surprise visit by U.S. first lady Melania Trump to a Texas facility to meet immigrant children separated from their families because of her husband's "zero-tolerance" immigration policy. Boarding a U.S. Air Force jet at and returning to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland on Thursday, the first lady was spotted wearing an olive green jacket. The back of the jacket read "I really don't care. Do U?" in white graffiti-style lettering. The first lady's team insisted that there was no hidden meaning behind the sartorial choice. "It's a jacket. There was no hidden message. After today's important visit to Texas, I hope the media isn't going to choose to focus on her wardrobe," said her communications director, Stephanie Grisham. President Donald Trump, however, contradicted the assertion there was no message conveyed by his wife's choice of apparel. Trump, in a tweet, said what was written on the back of the jacket "refers to the Fake News Media. Melania has learned how dishonest they are, and she truly no longer cares!" Television news channels brought pundits in the studio to discuss the meaning conveyed by the jacket. "I think she may have had an audience of one in mind her husband," said USA Today newspaper Washington bureau chief Susan Page, who has covered six presidential administrations, appearing on MSNBC. "I think it was Melania giving the middle finger to the media," Kate Anderson Brower, author of First Women: The Grace & Power of America's Modern First Ladies, told VOA. "But someone should have told her that it could also be read that she doesn't care about the children, which is clearly not the case." Fashion bloggers quickly identified the jacket as one selling for $39 by Zara, a fast fashion global retailer. It was a relatively humble selection by Trump, a former Paris runway model who is frequently clad for public appearances in haute couture dresses and coats. Question: What is probably true about the news media? Options: A. they are critical toward Melania Trump in many cases B. They do everything they can to encourage Melania Trump in a favorable way C. They are favorable toward Melania Trump in most cases D. not enough information === The correct answer is
(Answer)
A

Facebook has a long track record and sordid history of abusing their users' trust and privacy, including the most recent and egregious cases currently making headlines with Cambridge Analytica as well as election meddling in the US and Britain. As if that wasn't enough, it then came to light that they have also been tracking and storing users' phone call and text message data, including "who contacted whom, what time, and how long the conversation was." This is nothing new, as we can see from this 2012 "study" in which they deliberately manipulated news feeds to influence users' emotional state. And again with their settlement with the FCC back in 2011 (that they likely violated with their recent offenses) over deceiving consumers by telling them their information was private, but then repeatedly sharing it and making it public. And then there's The Ugly Memo, in which a FB exec justifies growth at any cost in the name of connecting people, even if that results literally in people dying: We talk about the good and the bad of our work often. I want to talk about the ugly. We connect people. That can be bad if they make it negative. Maybe it costs a life by exposing someone to bullies. Maybe someone dies in a terrorist attack coordinated on our tools. And still we connect people. The ugly truth is that we believe in connecting people so deeply that anything that allows us to connect more people more often is *de facto* good. And up until this most recent Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook was negotiating with various healthcare organizations to share patients' health data with FB so they could match it up to your social circle to allegedly provide better health care. Um yeah right. Each time this stuff happens, they issue an apology (or a justification for their behavior) and promise they will take steps to better inform users and protect their privacy, but it's clear that this is just lip service at this point. Question: When was facebook found to manipulate news feeds? Options: A. not enough information B. In 2015 C. During the Ugly Memo release D. After the settlement with the FCC === The correct answer is
D