Problem:OPTIONS:
- Tired, he is dating too many people
- not enough information
- Just ok
- Very happy

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: The dumbest thing that actually worked? I joined Tinder. Reason I say it was the dumbest is because I still acknowledge that it's not my kind of dating scene even though I ended up meeting the love of my life through the app. Other than that? Nothing was wrong or dumb. I have done nothing much because the man I am currently dating sent me a superlike after I was on the app for less than 12 hours. I joined, created profile, went through possible matches, and then went to bed. I didn't have enough time to do something dumb. Now my boyfriend on the other hand was on the app for 45 months prior to me joining and him finding me. His story is that he had been in there long enough to end up matching with some bots (robots that somehow end up joining or hacking the app. I have not a clue how) that he would have conversations with to test if they were legitimate people. He would also match with different people who would either immediately block him because he came as weird or he would block them because they came off as weird. When he found me, what he saw in my profile was that I was local, I was a legitimate person because I knew someone that he knew through Facebook, and I had multiple pictures of myself that looked genuine. I also had a description where I stated my intention for using the app which was that I was looking for a serious relationship. What he did after I connected with him was talk to me and then test me as the conversation progressed. How did he test me? He told a corny joke which I laughed to. If I hadn't have found his joke funny, he probably wouldn't have asked me out on a date. I hope that answers your question. I know it wasn't very. eventful. Question: How does the boyfriend probably feel about finding her? Answer:
****
A: Very happy

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: The Marshall police were looking for the killer, but they had no evidence or witnesses. The case would go cold in a hurry. Carnie was ready to check out of her room--not because of any fear of getting caught--just from boredom. She hadn't sold the old lady's jewelry, but had plenty of cash anyway. Carnie flipped open her cell phone and dialed. "Hello?" "Hey, Sis, how are you doing?" "Fine. What's going on?" "How about if I come stay with you guys for a few days before the wedding?" "You mean now?" "Yeah. If you don't mind." "Uh...sure, that'll be fine." "Great. It'll be like old times." "No, no. I can't party all night and get drunk." Carsie laughed. "Okay. Maybe not exactly like old times. But we'll have fun. See you in thirty minutes." "Thirty minutes? Where are you?" But Carnie had already hung up. It was hard to believe that her sister, Carsie, had wormed her way into the heart of the wealthy doctor. Sis had a lot more patience than she did. She would have just slit his throat and skipped town with his fortune. Surely Carsie hadn't actually fallen in love with the nerd. Maybe her biological clock had started ticking too loud to ignore. Carsie was about to turn 31, and Carnie was only a year behind her. But unlike her sister, Carnie didn't need a man to support her and give her babies. Anything she needed she would get for herself, thank you very much. But it would be hysterical to watch Carsie go through the whole 'until death do we part' shtick. Would she actually have the balls to wear a white dress? If the color of the dress indicates the purity of the bride, maybe she should go with midnight black. Question: How many people has Carnie killed? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- One
- not enough information
- More than three
- Two
not enough information

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Defense Secretary Jim Mattis promised Thursday the Pentagon will "notify" Congress before any possible military action in Syria, where the U.S. is considering responding to a suspected chemical weapons attack. "There will be notification to leadership, of course, prior to the attack," Mattis said in his testimony at the House Armed Services Committee. "We will report to Congress. We will keep open lines of communication." But notably, Mattis did not indicate the Trump administration would seek congressional approval before the strike, which presumably would target the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Trump says the U.S. will soon launch "nice and new and smart" missiles in response to last week's suspected poison gas attack, which left scores dead in a rebel-held area. Trump blames Assad for the attack. A U.S. attack is likely to upset a small but growing number of U.S. lawmakers who demand President Donald Trump first ask Congress to authorize any hostilities, citing the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a federal law intended to check the president's ability to wage war. U.S. presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have long argued they have legal authority to order airstrikes and other short-term military campaigns if those engagements fall short of the "hostilities" mentioned in the War Powers Resolution. Additionally, U.S. presidents have cited a pair of authorizations by Congress following the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks as justification for the near-constant U.S. strikes on Islamic militants around the world. The Trump administration has used those authorizations as justification for its current war in Syria. The U.S. has 2,000 troops in Syria, and helps lead an international coalition against Islamic State in Syria and neighboring Iraq. The overwhelming majority of U.S. lawmakers have not publicly objected to the administration's legal rationale for those missions. But as Trump considers expanding the U.S. war to include attacks on Syrian government targets, some in Congress are... Question: Where has the Trump administration authorized airstrikes for its current war? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Iran
- Iraq
- Syria

Answer: Syria

Problem: OPTIONS:
- Holistic health clinic accounting manager
- Staff accountant
- Neither
- not enough information
Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: 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. Question: What job did he choose to work? Answer:
Answer:
Staff accountant