So this thing happened today. I am living in a society where there are almost 90 houses and almost all of them are occupied. We have one sweeper hired for whole society to collect waste and sweep out dust from our society roads. BTW her name is Hira masi (my brother calls her diamond masi :p). And she is extremely poor and she lives in those slums where almost nothing is available. She earns 50/100 per house each month. (Source) As she is extremely poor, all the society people help her a lot. From giving 2 times food to giving clothes and giving bonuses on special occasion as much as Rs. 1000, they almost help her in each and every aspect. And this is by far the most incredible thing our society has which is humanity. But the twist comes here. On the other side, she is extremely cunning. She rarely cleans the road, takes rarely wastes from homes, gives excuses that she is sick and does not come for work, etc. She does not do her work properly. She also request money from us saying that her family members are ill as much as Rs 10000, even if they are not. So this thing was discussed in our meeting and there some decided to continue her as she was very poor and some decided to leave her. But my mom today told me a great thing- If a person is doing her work seriously, then we will surely help him in every way, even if it is a matter of money, but the person who is not sincere and not doing work properly, then sometimes we have to step back from humanity and be strict. If the person is honest and he is REALLY in need of help, we should definitely help them. But the person who just fakes that he is in need, we should be strict/ignore them, else they will not do any work, and just simply rely on us. Sometimes, being strict and giving up humanity will make the person grow. Question: How long has Hira masi been sweeping in the society? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- a full week
- a few years
- a couple of days

Answer: a few years

It has become increasingly common for academics to use social media to communicate with wider audiences. Twitter, like many other social platforms, typically measures success in terms of numbers of followers, likes and retweets, but this only tells us something about the spreading of messages but not necessarily whether the content of the messages is understood or embraced. One way to ascertain this is through network and language analysis, which, used together, can tell us how effective the communication is. Economists tweet less, mention fewer people and have fewer conversations with strangers than a comparable group of experts in the sciences, and use less accessible language with words that are more complex, with more abbreviations and with a more distant tone. Their tweets are less personal and less inclusive than those used by scientists. This is what appeared in April 2017 when we gathered data on tens of thousands of tweets from the Twitter accounts of both the top 25 economists and 25 scientists as identified by IDEAS and Science, including the top three economists at the time, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Erik Brynjolfsson and, on the other side, the top three scientists, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, and Richard Dawkins. At that time those accounts covered roughly two thirds of all the following. The timing is significant because 2016 has been declared the year of post-truth politics, the year in which appeals to emotions (pathos) superseded the significance of factual evidence-based information (logos), affecting people's constructions and interpretations of events. This has been accompanied by the growing prominence of political "alt" movements (e.g. UKIP, the Alt-right) and their aggressive, provocative, and populist narratives, and "fake news" leading to political shock events such as Brexit and the Trump election. The relatively low traction of economists in these public debates has been and continues to be an important issue. Does the public not trust economists? Don't they understand... Question: Why was data gathered from twitter accounts in 2017? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- To tell us how effective communication is.
- To see why economists mentioned fewer people.
- not enough information
- To see why scientists were more inclusive.

Answer: To tell us how effective communication is.

WASHINGTON They called themselves "crusaders" for a reason. The three Kansas militiamen planned to blow up an apartment complex housing Somali refugees during the 2016 presidential election, unleashing what one of them called "Crusades 2.0." But their plan was foiled after their arrest just weeks before the election, highlighting the changing enemy list of a movement founded on the back of anti-government activism a generation ago. And with the election of a president whose policies many militia members support, the urge to confront the government appears to have lost some of its urgency. Instead of railing at the government, they have in recent years turned their venom against new-found foes: Muslims, immigrants, the Antifa. "Some of the militia groups have been refocusing their attention on secondary enemies for the movement," said Mark Pitcavage, who researches extremism at the Anti-Defamation League civil rights group. Often lumped together with other right-wing groups, the anti-government movement comes in different forms. There are the "preppers," so called because they stockpile water, food and other essentials in preparation for civil unrest. There are the "survivalists," people who learn skills to "live off the land" in case of a disaster. There are "sovereign citizens" such as the suspect in the recent shooting at a Waffle House in Tennessee who are opposed to paying taxes and believe they should decide which laws to follow. And then there are the militiamen who conduct regular military-style training to resist a government they see as engaged in a global plot to take away their guns and constitutional rights. The modern militia movement dates back to a series of events in the early 1990s, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Among them: the 1992 election of Democratic President Bill Clinton and an FBI attack the following year on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, an event seen as "evidence of an out of control government willing to attack citizens." Under Clinton, the number... Question: what is probably true about anti-government groups? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- they sincerely believe everything they say
- not enough information
- they will align with Antifa
- they are racist

Answer:
they are racist