Job offer many years ago. I had two, one for staff accountant and the other was as accounting manager for a holistic health clinic. The clinic job paid about 40% more and came with a "manager" title. I believed in myself and all that, but who offers someone just out of school with only 2 years of internship and no specialty in field manager level? That kept bugging me. Something just wasn't right. Acting on instinct, I took the other job. Good thing! A few months later, I read that the owner of the clinic (an MD) and his two partners (his wife and the CFO) had all been indicted for numerous counts of fraud. They were cheating the state, they were cheating the church they were affiliated with, they were cheating Medicare and private insurance companies. The IRS was after them it was supposed to be not-for-profit but it turns out they were living large. Not only that, but they hadn't been sending in w/h tax for non-church member paid employees. Then there was the allegation that they were abusing mentally handicapped workers who were related to church members. The church itself tried to distance themselves, but three elders were also on the clinic's Board of Directors. It was nasty and the entire management team ended up with at least some jail time. There was no way anyone who had any access to the records (medical or financial) could have claimed innocence. My job would have included filing false budget and financial statements with the Board, IRS and other agencies. I would have also probably known that they were withholding but not remitting tax from employee checks. Fact is, the poor kid who took the job got 2 years, so I found out. Those in on the medical fraud got even worse and the three principals all got 2-digit sentences. According to the above context, answer the following question. What is true about him?
OPTIONS:
- He has experience in accounting
- not enough information
- He heard about the holistic clinic
- He has experience in prediction by use of his gut feelings

Answer: He has experience in accounting

Question: In recent weeks, the investigation into possible collusion between President Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia has intensified, raising the prospect that the probe could become an issue in advance of the November midterm congressional elections. Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort made another appearance in federal court in Washington Wednesday, where he pleaded not guilty to the latest round of charges brought by special counsel Robert Mueller. Last week, Rick Gates, Manafort's former deputy, pleaded guilty to lying to prosecutors and is now cooperating with the investigation. In mid-February, 13 Russians were indicted in connection with election meddling, which deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein described as an effort to "promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy. We must not allow them to succeed." Congressional inquiries also continue. Hope Hicks, the White House communications director and a longtime Trump aide, was the latest figure to testify before a congressional committee on the Russia probe. Hicks declined to answer some questions before a closed session of the House Intelligence Committee, frustrating several Democrats. "This is not executive privilege. This is executive stonewalling," said ranking committee Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff. But there was more pushback from the White House this week. President Trump fired off a series of tweets dismissing the probe as a "WITCH HUNT." "They have had this phony cloud over this administration, over our government," Trump told reporters at the White House last month. "And it has hurt our government, it does hurt our government. It is a Democrat hoax." Democrats reject that view, including Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. "I continue to believe that this is the most important thing that I will work on in my whole public career, and getting the whole truth out is extraordinarily important," he said. Warner's committee is also investigating possible... According to the above context, answer the following question. Who was indicted for election meddling in mid-February?
OPTIONS:
- 13 Russians
- 10 Italians
- not enough information
- 12 Spaniards
Answer: 13 Russians

input with options: William White sat across from me, fidgeting nervously with an empty packet of artificial sweetener while his coffee went cold, ignored on the table in front of him. He rolled the torn yellow paper up like a tight little spliff, then unrolled it, smoothed it out flat, and then rolled it again. I was midway through my third cup of coffee with no intention of stopping soon. I was tired and edgy, irritated at William for dragging me out at this time of night, and getting even more irritated at his refusal to get to the point. 'Did you know Philip K. Dick had a twin sister?' I stared at him blankly. 'Her name was Jane. She died shortly after their birth. They were six weeks premature,' he continued, his eyes drifting off to the window to his right. I wasn't sure if he was looking at something through it or staring at his own reflection in it. 'Dick never got over Jane's death; her ghost haunted him throughout his life, and the idea of a phantom twin pops up throughout his work. Some have even speculated that Dick's inability to make peace with the loss of his sister contributed to his drug abuse, and by extension also his death at the relatively young age of 53.' He unrolled the sweetener packet, laid it on the table, placed both index fingers together in its center, and then spread them outward, smoothing the paper flat. I reached out and slammed my own hand on top of the packet, preventing him from fiddling with it anymore. 'Sorry,' he said sheepishly. I let out a sigh. 'Not that this isn't fascinating, but did you seriously call me out to Denny's at 3 am for this?' According to the above context, answer the following question. What was White's occupation?
OPTIONS:
- A medical doctor
- not enough information
- A private detective
- A lawyer
output: not enough information

Question: "That'll be $9.87." Rebecca Ranghorn flipped up the top of the box, pulled out a glazed donut, and took bite. The young secretary behind her looked on in disbelief. She was so ready for the weekend. But first she had to get to the office and put in her lousy eight hours. Why couldn't this woman just pay and get out of the way? Rebecca tossed the box at the clerk. A couple of donuts flew out and fell on the floor behind the counter. "Those are yesterday's donuts. I told you to give me the fresh ones." "But, ma'am, these are the fresh--." The look in her eyes stopped him cold. He dumped the box in the trash and picked out a fresher dozen. "Now, that'll be $9.87, please." "Keep your drawers on, Jack." She sampled the new batch. "That's more like it." She threw a ten dollar bill on the counter and walked out with her donuts and large bottle of orange juice. Her enormous black 1979 Lincoln Continental Town Car was four feet longer and twice the weight of the young secretary's Toyota Corolla parked next to it. It was costing her a fortune to drive her dad's old car. But it made her feel close to him--even though he had been dead for eleven years. She rarely had an occasion to drive out of town--and it was not a big town. Sherman, Texas has about 36,000 residents. She pulled into the old strip mall parking lot. Most of the stores and other businesses were barely hanging on. The place hadn't seen decent shopping traffic since the 1980s. But it was the perfect location for Rebecca and her partner. They didn't need shoppers. All they needed was cheap office space. Theirs was narrow, but deep, with a reception area, two offices and a bathroom. According to the above context, answer the following question. When did Rebecca give the cashier the money?
OPTIONS:
- After she tasted the donut
- While she was tasting the donut
- not enough information
- Before she tasted the donut
Answer:
After she tasted the donut