TASK DEFINITION: Write a question from the passage such that it identifies a character (a person or a thing) in the passage.
PROBLEM: Jimbob Blakey wasn't so much given birth to as clambered right out of his mother himself. He weighed in at almost thirteen pounds, came ready-fitted with a shock of fat black hair and a couple of razor teeth. Jimbob's folks loved him like most folks love their little ones, maybe more. They'd been trying so hard for a child, suffered more mid-term miscarriages than the ewes they shuttled off to market most Thursdays. They dressed him in a one-year babygro and took him home to their hill farm. They fought to get up nights and give him his milk. His teeth made breast-feeding impossible. They sat hours gazing down in his cot. They dressed him fine and took him to their church and gave their thanks. Showed him off like the proud parents they were. Others cooed and smiled. But they never asked to hold. They gave thanks the Blakeys were happy, and that the monkey-baby had not been born to them. Jimbob's folks never gave a second thought that their boy might be different. The first Spring he walked, he stomped the moors in his welly-boots helping herd the pregnant ewes down in-by. He copied his father, kicking and cuffing at the stragglers, when the flock was returned to the hills in May. As Jimbob grew, his hair became thicker, his arms longer. His head shrunk down on his shoulders. At check-ups, nurses fixed smiles and pronounced him healthy. Doctors said, 'he'll make you a strapping lad.' His mother smiled, her heart swelled. When he was three, she sent him to nursery. She wanted him to mix with other kids. To taste life off the hard hills. She said, 'it'll do him the world of good.' Jimbob hated leaving the farm. He clung to his mother. She drove away, blinking tears. On the third day, she took a phone call. 'It's Jimbob,' they said. 'He's scaring the other kids.'The truth hit Jimbob's mother like a hammer.

SOLUTION: Who weighed almost thirteen pounds at birth?

PROBLEM: The battle lines are drawn once again. U.S. law enforcement agencies and Silicon Valley are getting ready to face off on the issue of privacy.
This latest battle is focused on a 30-year-old law on government access to electronic communications and associated data. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act was a forward-looking statute when enacted in 1986, but technology has dramatically outpaced the ECPA.
The U.S. Congress has been looking into ways to revise the law in order to preserve the privacy of internet users while also preserving the legal tools necessary for government agencies to enforce the law and protect the public.
The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called privacy "the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people."
The Senate Judiciary Committee this week is considering an amendment to the ECPA that would expand the government's ability to collect data using a National Security Letter, which doesn't require a court order. The amendment would authorize the FBI to demand a person's internet browser history and internet protocol address, enabling investigators to see what websites a person visits, how much time is spent on a particular site and the location of the internet user all without judicial oversight.
The FBI contends that such data is covered implicitly under current statute, which was written years ago and only explicitly covers data normally associated with telephone records. FBI Director James Comey has said the amendment is needed to fix "a typo" in the ECPA that has hindered the bureau's ability to work in "a very, very big and practical way."
But a letter sent earlier this week warned Congress that such an amendment is opposed by tech giants and civil liberties organizations.
"This expansion of the NSL statute has been characterized by some government officials as merely fixing 'a typo' in the law," the letter said. "In reality, however, it would dramatically expand the ability of the FBI to get sensitive information about users' online activities without court oversight."
It was signed by Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Human Rights Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union and others.

SOLUTION: Who said that privacy is the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people."?

PROBLEM: I repeatedly see people asking advice on forums as to which is the best detox to do. Whenever I see this question I want to scream at the person 'no, don't do it. It is a waste of your time and money'...but I don't. I don't want to cause a scene, or start a barrage of backlash from people claiming that it worked for them. Instead, I will present the facts and let you decide for yourself if it is worth doing.
Before I start, I just want to clarify that when I am referring to detox I mean the ones that you buy where you have to take a million various tablets a day and stick to a very restricted diet. If you are going to 'detox' by simply eating healthily then all power to you. That will most definitely do wonders for your body. These detox kits won't. They will produce results; however, the results will be temporary.
Why detoxes don't work
Firstly, the companies who are marketing the detoxes talk about removing toxins that have built up in the body. So, what are these toxins? They don't say. They remain vague and just leave you to let your imagination run wild. Do they mean chemicals, waste products from digestion, bacteria? I guess I imagined it as the waste products from digestion but it would be interesting to hear what other people perceive as the 'toxins' in their bodies.
I read an interesting article on British Beauty Blogger about how Veet gave Chinese women a problem they never had. Chinese women naturally have very little body hair so hair removal products have always been poor sellers. Therefore, Reckitt Benckiser (who own Veet) devised a marketing campaign to convince Chinese that any body hair is unsightly and released ads equating hair free skin with health, confidence and "shining glory" (the full marketing concept can be read here). I feel that this is the same as what is happening in regards to detoxes. The marketers of the products have convinced us that our bodies are full of these so called 'toxins', from our unhealthy lifestyles, that need to be removed with a detox.

SOLUTION:
Who was the company that gave Chinese women a problem they had never had?