Iwasaki's careful respect for the Long Beach program and its lawyers earned him the political capital he needed to complete his takeover in a matter of weeks. "The Long Beach program had strong support in the community so in a situation like that, one has to recognize that it's not like a takeover where I have all the answers and I know best," Iwasaki said. "The people in the community who are working there have the contacts and the knowledge that will allow service to continue." Things have gone less smoothly across town. There, Dudovitz, a longtime poverty lawyer and executive director of the San Fernando Valley's 36-year-old legal aid program, continues to struggle with his hostile takeover of the neighboring San Gabriel-Pomona Valleys service area one year after it was accomplished. On the bright side, Dudovitz has extended his respected program to clients in the San Gabriel-Pomona Valley, and he now operates on a much larger budget, $6.5 million last year. However, his clash with the old San Gabriel program resulted in litigation, bitter feelings and a mission that some say is not clearly focused on serving poor people. "It was a difficult situation that was probably mishandled by everyone," a longtime observer of the public interest community said of the San Fernando Valley-San Gabriel-Pomona Valley merger. "There are very few people who come out as the heroes. Personalities got involved when they shouldn't have. Things were said that caused bad feelings and couldn't be unsaid." Iwasaki's merger with the smaller, 48-year-old Long Beach program was friendly and fast, and no one - not even Long Beach board members - lost a job. When it was over, Iwasaki had $1 million more in federal dollars and two new offices. Long Beach clients regained services they had lost years ago when federal budget cuts and dwindling grants reduced the staff of 15 lawyers to five and cut immigration and consumer law programs. Iwasaki said, "[I judged the transition] better than I could have hoped for."

Question: "How many people were fired in order for Long Beach clients to regain services?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "15"

Response: no

The inhabited history of the Las Vegas Valley stretches to 23,000 b.c. , when much of the area was covered by a prehistoric lake. During this period, the indigenous people lived in caves, hunting the mammals that gathered at the shoreline. The landscape of the valley changed dramatically over the next 200 centuries. The glaciers feeding the lake melted away and the lake evaporated. Fossils tell an obscure story of man's slow and sporadic development. Around 3000 b.c. , native Archaic Indians began to develop a lasting hunting and gathering culture. By this time, the valley was in much the same geographic state as it exists in today, with one exceptionthe presence of artesian springs that bubbled to the surface in several areas. These springs fed a network of streams draining through the Las Vegas Wash to the Colorado River. The areas surrounding the springs were desert oases: sprawling collections of grasses, trees, and wildlife. Many springs lay in areas that would eventually become the center of the modern Las Vegas metropolis. For about 4000 years, the Archaics thrived in a culture that included many signs of early civilization. Signs of even more advancement appeared halfway through the first millennium a.d. , when the Anasazi Indians inhabited the valley. Far more progressive than the Archaics, the Anasazi utilized such formal agricultural techniques as irrigation to assist their harvest. This permitted the Anasazi to achieve a benchmark of advanced societythe ability to live in permanent shelters year-round without need to follow wildlife. Mysteriously, the Anasazi vanished from the valley around a.d.

Question: "What allowed the Anasazi to live in permanent shelters?"

Response: "A newly discovered river"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A: no

Problem: The Vice President stated that he called the President to discuss the rules of engagement for the CAP. He recalled feeling that it did no good to establish the CAP unless the pilots had instructions on whether they were authorized to shoot if the plane would not divert. He said the President signed off on that concept. The President said he remembered such a conversation, and that it reminded him of when he had been an interceptor pilot. The President emphasized to us that he had authorized the shootdown of hijacked aircraft. The Vice President's military aide told us he believed the Vice President spoke to the President just after entering the conference room, but he did not hear what they said. Rice, who entered the room shortly after the Vice President and sat next to him, remembered hearing him inform the President, "Sir, the CAPs are up. Sir, they're going to want to know what to do." Then she recalled hearing him say, "Yes sir." She believed this conversation occurred a few minutes, perhaps five, after they entered the conference room. We believe this call would have taken place sometime before 10:10 to 10:15. Among the sources that reflect other important events of that morning, there is no documentary evidence for this call, but the relevant sources are incomplete. Others nearby who were taking notes, such as the Vice President's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, who sat next to him, and Mrs. Cheney, did not note a call between the President and Vice President immediately after the Vice President entered the conference room. At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft-presumably hijacked-heading toward Washington. That aircraft was United 93. The Secret Service was getting this information directly from the FAA. The FAA may have been tracking the progress of United 93 on a display that showed its projected path to Washington, not its actual radar return. Thus, the Secret Service was relying on projections and was not aware the plane was already down in Pennsylvania.

Question: "Why was the Secret Service's information about United 93 flawed?"

Answer: "Based on projected path"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
Answer: yes

Juzo Murasaki arrives at a work construction area to take on his new job as a construction worker . To his quiet dismay , his supervising boss turns out to be Toru Akai , who with his gang had made Juzo's middle school life a living hell . Akai , however , does n't recognize Juzo . Juzo's more disconcerted when he discovers that Akai lives with his wife , Nozomi Akai and their toddler son above Juzo's new apartment . As Juzo emotionally struggles to handle these unexpected developments , a mysterious and seemingly malicious hooded figure appears . It calls itself Number 13 . As Juzo attempts to control increasing number of flashbacks and a spiral fall into psychological darkness , Akai constantly picks on Juzo and other work colleagues including Seki Hajime , a former middle school student who becomes Juzo's casual friend in spite of Juzo's anti-social tendencies , at work . Meanwhile Akai's wife , Nozomi , attempts to make friends with Juzo and entrusting the care of her toddler son to Juzo . She proudly shows Juzo her husband's school photos . In one class photo , Juzo's space is marked with an X to show he was absent . Juzo suffers a severe flashback to explain his absence that day : in their school's science room , Akai and his friends have thrown acid at Juzo's face . Seki becomes suspicious about Juzo's increasingly odd behavior and goes to inform Arai at the work site , but Arai dismisses him without giving him a chance to speak . During this incident , Seki does n't realize he's being watched by Number 13 , but as soon as he does , Number 13 kills him .

Question: "Who killed Seki and why?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "Juzo, because Seki reported his odd behavior"

Response:
no