input question: Write a multi-choice question for the following article, with the given choices and answer: Article: There are stories about two U.S . presidents,Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren,which attempt to explain the American English term OK.We don't know if either story is true,but they are both interesting. The first explanation is based on the fact that President Jackson had very little education.In fact,he had difficulty reading and writing.When important papers came to Jackson,he tried to read them and then had his assistants explain what they said.If he approved of a paper, he would write "all correct"on it.The problem was that he didn't know how to spell.So what he really wrote was "ol korekt".After a while,he shortened that term to "OK". The second explanation is based on the place where President Van Buren was born,Kinderhook,New York.Van Buren's friends organized a club to help him become President .They called the club the Old Kinderhook Club,and anyone who supported Van Buren was called"OK". Options: A couldn't draw up any documents at all B didn't like to read important papers by himself C often had his assistants sign documents for him D wasn't good at reading,writing or spelling Answer: D wasn't good at reading,writing or spelling Question:???
output answer: According to the passage,President Jackson _ .

Write a multi-choice question for the following article, with the given choices and answer: Article: Expressions about water are almost as common as water itself. But many of the expressions using water have unpleasant meanings. The expression "to be in hot water" is one of them. It is a very old expression. "Hot water" was used 500 years ago to mean being in trouble. One story says it got that meaning from the custom of throwing extremely hot water down on enemies attacking a castle. That no longer happens. But we still get in "hot water".When we are in "hot water", we are in trouble. It can be any kind of trouble--serious or not so serious. A person who breaks a law can be in hot water with the police. A young boy can be in hot water with his mother. if he walks in the house with dirty shoes. Being in "deep water" is almost the same as being in hot water. When you are in deep water, you are in a difficult position. Imagine a person who cannot swim being thrown in water over his head. You are in deep water when you are facing a problem that you do not have the ability to solve. The problem is too deep. You can be in deep water, for example, if you invest in stocks without knowing anything about the stock market. "To keep your head above water" is a colorful expression that means staying out of debt. A company seeks to keep its head above water during economic hard times. A man who loses his job tries to keep his head above water until he finds a new job. "Water over the dam" is another expression about a past event. It is something that is finished. It cannot be changed. The expression comes from the idea that water that has flowed over a dam cannot be brought back again. Options: A To be in hot water;To be in deep water. B To be in hot water;To keep your head above water. C To be in deep water;Water over the dam. D Water over the dam;To be in hot water. Answer: A To be in hot water;To be in deep water. Question:
----
Answer: Which of the following two expressions have almost the same meaning?

Q: Write a multi-choice question for the following article, with the given choices and answer: Article: Smoking bans in public places are linked with falls in childhood asthma attacks and preterm births , according to the biggest analysis of the influence of public smoking bans on child health. The finding should remove fears that such laws could have the opposite effect because they may lead people to smoke more at home. Several countries, such as Japan and Australia, have tightened laws on smoking in public places over the last few years. Meanwhile, some countries, such as the Netherlands and Germany, still allow smoking in pubs and restaurants. Only about half of US states have comprehensive bans, and there are few restrictions in poorer nations. Opponents often claim that bans could result in people smoking more at home, which would be worse for their children's health. Asthma is one of the main concerns as second-hand smoke harms children's airways in several ways. Researchers led by Jasper Been at Maastricht University Medical Centre reviewed as many as 11 studies that examined how hospital admissions for childhood asthma and preterm births changed after smoking bans came in. The studies involved more than 2.5 million births, and nearly 250,000 hospital admissions for asthma. The result shows that both asthma admissions and preterm birth rates fell by about 10 percent within a year after smoking restrictions were carried out. The effect on preterm births could also have been caused by pregnant women being more likely to quit or cut down following a public ban, says Been. But Been also says the studies could not completely prove that smoking bans directly caused these changes. However, as a matter of fact, because the analysis included several smoking bans introduced in different countries in different years, and most saw health improvements. Such findings are useful for countries and states where there is ongoing debate about how strict smoking bans should be, especially as hospital care for premature babies is so expensive. This might be one of the most important things to know in order to strengthen... Options: A they have much difficulty in quitting smoking B they believe it will cause people to smoke more at home C smoking bans contributing to health can't be proved D the laws might cause opposite effect on smokers Answer: B they believe it will cause people to smoke more at home Question:
A: According to the passage, some oppose smoking bans in public places because .

Problem: Given the question: Write a multi-choice question for the following article, with the given choices and answer: Article: Mr. Knight was the manager of a hotel. One weekend all of the hotels in the city were full because there was a large meeting. On Friday, three men came into the hotel and asked for rooms. Mr. Knight said there were no rooms ready because of the meeting. The men were unhappy. Mr. Knight wanted to help them. He remembered that Room 418, a small room, was empty. He asked them if they could share a room. The three men said they would. Mr. Knight said the room would be thirty dollars; ten dollars for each person. Each man gave him the money and then went up to the room. Mr. Knight soon began to feel sorry. "Thirty dollars is a lot to ask as a price for that small room." he thought. He called his assistant over and said, "Here is five dollars. Take it to the men in Room 418. I asked too much for their room." The assistant took the money. While he was on the way there, he started to think, "How can three men divide five dollars? I'll give them each only one dollar and keep the two dollars for myself. The men will be happy to get something back. And Mr. Knight will never know." So the assistant returned one dollar to each man. Each man had at first paid ten dollars. After the assistant returned them one dollar each, each had actually(in fact) paid nine. There were three men. $9 3="$27." The assistant kept$2. $27+$2="$29." Where is the missing dollar? Options: A helped the men to divide the money B kept two dollars for himself C kept three dollars for himself D returned three dollars to the men and two to the manger Answer: B kept two dollars for himself Question:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The answer is:
The assistant _ .