As his car slid downtown on Tuesday morning the mind of Arnold Thorndike was occupied with such details of daily routine as the purchase of a railroad, the Japanese loan, the new wing to his art gallery, and an attack that morning, in his own newspaper, upon his pet trust. But his busy mind was not too occupied to return the salutes of the traffic policemen who cleared the way for him. Or, by some genius of memory, to recall the fact that it was on this morning young Spear was to be sentenced for theft. It was a charming morning. The spring was at full tide, and the air was sweet and clean. Mr. Thorndike considered whimsically that to send a man to jail with the memory of such a morning clinging to him was adding a year to his sentence. He regretted he had not given the probation officer a stronger letter. He remembered the young man now, and favorably. A shy, silent youth, deft in work, and at other times conscious and embarrassed. But that, on the part of a stenographer, in the presence of the Wisest Man in Wall Street, was not unnatural. On occasions, Mr. Thorndike had put even royalty frayed, impecunious royalty, on the lookout for a loanat its ease. The hood of the car was down, and the taste of the air, warmed by the sun, was grateful. It was at this time, a year before, that young Spear picked the spring flowers to take to his mother. A year from now where would young Spear be? It was characteristic of the great man to act quickly, so quickly that his friends declared he was a slave to impulse. It was these same impulses, leading so invariably to success, that made his enemies call him the Wisest Man. He leaned forward and touched the chauffeur's shoulder. "Stop at the Court of General Sessions," he commanded. What he proposed to do would take but a few minutes. A word, a personal word from him to the district attorney, or the judge, would be enough.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer: Why was it a charming morning?

The movie is a powerful story that deals with feminism and patriarchy in the middle class of India . It is shot in the present and past tense showing lives of the characters Mahender and Sudha as they lived together as well as separately . The movie starts with Mahender getting down at the railway station and making his way to the waiting room just as it starts to rain heavily . A woman , Sudha , is already sitting in the waiting room . On seeing him , she tries to hide her face from him but later they confront each other . Mahender has an accomplished business dealing with photography . He respects his grandfather immensely . Incidentally , he had been engaged to Sudha for 5 years but always made some excuse to delay their wedding . However , this time his grandfather has fixed the wedding on the first week of the following month . He reveals to Sudha that he is having an affair with one of the most radical representations of feminism in a girl called Maya . He returns to tell Maya , but Maya has disappeared , leaving him some poetry . Mahender then marries Sudha and is quite happy , but the sudden return of Maya causes tensions in their married life . Mahender frequently tells Sudha about all the beautifully poignant , loving and authentic things Maya did over the years that they lived together . Later , Maya tries to commit suicide , and this leads to Mahender spending time with her over a few weeks . Sudha , not knowing about Maya 's suicide attempt and therefore believing that Mahender is being unfaithful to her , feels that her marriage was a mistake , and questions Mahender about his intentions .
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer: Who does Mahender meet in the waiting room of a train station?

Sam Farragut is a sociopathic business executive in Southern California who forces a team of advertising agency employees to embark on a dangerous dirtbike trip to the Baja California desert in order to compete for his business . The men are Warren Summerfield , a suicidal middle-aged ad executive who has been fired from the agency ; the straightlaced Paul McIlvain who is inattentive to his wife , and brash art designer Maxon who feels suddenly trapped after his girlfriend announces she is pregnant . There are numerous long sequences of motorcycle riding on desert backroads . Summerfield has been having an affair with McIlvian's wife . He has not told his wife that he was fired and is simply serving out his tenure at the agency while looking for a new position . His wife is actually aware of the affair . Farragut convinces the ad men to make the motorcycle journey on the pretext of looking for a location to shoot a commercial . In reality , Farragut is reckless and looking to involve the men in spontaneous edgy adventure of his own manipulation . After they leave , McIlvain's wife suspects that Summerfield is planning to kill himself for the insurance money , but she can not convince Summerfield's wife to instigate a search . The four men travel deeper into Mexico on isolated dirt roads . At one point Summerfield contemplates plunging off a cliff . After being humiliated by a young American couple in a Baja bar , Farragut tracks them down on the beach while accompanied by Maxon .
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer: What extreme action does Summerfield contemplate after traveling further into Mexico on isolated dirt roads?

Animated history of the US. Of course the cartoon is highly oversimplified, and most critics consider it one of the weakest parts of the film. But it makes a valid claim which you ignore entirely: That the strategy to promote "gun rights" for white people and to outlaw gun possession by black people was a way to uphold racism without letting an openly terrorist organization like the KKK flourish. Did the 19th century NRA in the southern states promote gun rights for black people? I highly doubt it. But if they didn't, one of their functions was to continue the racism of the KKK. This is the key message of this part of the animation, which is again being ignored by its critics. Buell shooting in Flint. You write: "Fact: The little boy was the class thug, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day before". This characterization of a six-year-old as a pencil-stabbing thug is exactly the kind of hysteria that Moore's film warns against. It is the typical right-wing reaction which looks for simple answers that do not contradict the Republican mindset. The kid was a little bastard, and the parents were involved in drugs -- case closed. But why do people deal with drugs? Because it's so much fun to do so? It is by now well documented that the CIA tolerated crack sales in US cities to fund the operation of South American "contras" It is equally well known that the so-called "war on drugs" begun under the Nixon administration is a failure which has cost hundreds of billions and made America the world leader in prison population (both in relative and absolute numbers).
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer:
In the author's mind, which characterization of the Buell school shooter is more appropriate? "Thug" or "Bastard"?