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, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: How long had the health clinic had been in operation for? Options: A. For about 4 months B. For about 2 months C. not enough information D. Longer than a year.
D

The U.S. Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it may be open to new limits on the government's ability to track someone's movements by accessing data on that person's cellphone. A case before the high court could result in a landmark decision in the ongoing debate over civil liberties protections in an era of rapid technological change. At issue is whether law enforcement will be able to access cellphone data that can reveal a person's whereabouts without having to first obtain a court-issued search warrant. The case stems from the conviction of Timothy Carpenter for a series of robberies back in 2010 and 2011. Prosecutors were able to obtain cellphone records that indicated his location over a period of months, information that proved crucial to his conviction. On Wednesday, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union argued that law enforcement should be required to obtain a court-ordered search warrant before obtaining such information. They also argued that allowing law enforcement to access the cellphone data without a warrant would violate the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures contained in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "It is impossible to go about our daily lives without leaving a trail of digital breadcrumbs that reveal where we have been over time, what we have done, who we spent time with," said ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, who spoke to reporters outside the Supreme Court following oral arguments. "It is time for the court, we think, to update Fourth Amendment doctrine to provide reasonable protections today." Some of the justices also raised concerns about privacy in the digital age. "Most Americans, I think, still want to avoid Big Brother," Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who often sides with the liberal wing of the court, said. Chief Justice John Roberts, who often sides with conservatives on the court, said the central question was whether the cellphone information should be accessible to the government "without a warrant." According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: Who's case caused the debate? Options: A. not enough information B. Wessler C. Freed D. Carpenter
D

Q: I lost sight in one eye when in college, I had two preschool children at the time. I was walking through the house one morning and suddenly I could see NOTHING out of one eye. When I told my husband,who was right there when it happened, he assumed my eye was just blurry or something had gotten in the eye. He took me to the ophthalmologist who verified that I could not see out of the eye. Then we subsequently got the worse news that it was a neurological condition with a long name I do not remember that there was nothing he could do about. He said that I would either get my sight back or I you and all we could do was wait and see if it came back. This was right before finals that semester but he told me I absolutely could not be studying or using my good eye for reading or basically anything that would strain it or I could end up losing sight in that eye also. Needless to say, as a mom of two children ages 2 1/2 and 6 months,I could not afford to lose ALL of my sight! So, I had to wait. I could not drive like that either which made matters worse. Both my husband and I were in school fulltime (until then), fortunately it was the end of the semester, unfortunately it was BEFORE finals. My sight did come back but not for about 5 months. When it first started to come back I still couldn't drive because although I could see I did not have my peripheral vision, that did not fully come back for quite a while. I cannot imagine it a person who goes totally blind goes through, I just know for me it was not an easy to to go through. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: Who verified that the author could not see out of one eye? Options: A. her husband B. not enough information C. the ophthalmologist D. the author did
A: C

(Q).
I end this small run of blog posts with the question posed by Professor Brian Boyd at the beginning of our evening: Do we want to close the achievement gap? We know we can close the gap. It's been done or almost been done before in Scottish education, but the answers have been ignored as they pass us by. The simple clue is this: poverty is single biggest predictor of achievement, and according to research (Hammonds sic, reference required), aged 10, a child living in poverty is 60% less likely to get to university. Boyd borrowed from his own mother's report card to ask us what kind of education we desire. Is it the academic success at all costs route, or is there another option we need to value as much, if not more? His mother's report card, one that prevented her from becoming a secondary school pupil in Glasgow, is filled with G and FG, until the last point: Character and conduct - excellent. What kind of pupils do we want to develop in Scotland? What do we value in our assessment system? Opening up opportunity for all is a tough game to play when the examination system rewards only certain types of behaviour, few of them related to what the Curriculum for Excellence says we stand for. In his own small community in East Kilbride, three secondary schools enter a period of meltdown as the local rag sets about creating its own local league table of performance, with those three 'teams' in competition for the top spot (or at least not the bottom one). Therefore, we must stop basing "the gap" largely on attainment. First of all, Boyd would like us to remove the traditional, and non-sensical academic/vocational divide. Is the law or medicine degree we value not vocational? (Are all General Practitioners not Plumbers, as Dr Murray on the panel suggests?) According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: After the end of the story the writer: Options: A. would disagree with Boyd's future opinions and findings B. not enough information C. would agree with Boyd's future opinions and findings D. would attack any of Boyd's opinions and findings
(A).
C