Question: U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch visited Orlando, Florida, on Tuesday, nine days after what she called a "shattering attack" at a gay nightclub. Lynch told the city's devastated gay community, "We stand with you in the light." She also announced a $1 million emergency grant to help Florida law enforcement pay for overtime costs related to the shooting, and she met with prosecutors, first responders and victims of the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history. Her visit comes as investigators continue to dig into the background of Omar Mateen, the gunman who killed 49 people and injured dozens more on June 12 at the Pulse nightclub. Lynch said it was a "cruel irony" that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community one defined almost entirely by love is so often a target of hate. She told the LGBTQ community, "We stand with you to say that the good in the world far outweighs the evil; that our common humanity transcends our differences; and that our most effective response to terror and hatred is compassion, unity and love." Also Tuesday, Orlando police reopened streets near the nightclub and wound down their investigation at the crime scene. A makeshift memorial that went up nearby shortly after the massacre was still standing Tuesday, with chalk messages on the sidewalk and utility poles. Among them are drawings of hearts, the message "God bless'' and the hashtag "#Orlandostrong.'' Lynch declined to answer questions about the investigation and whether authorities are looking to charge anyone else in connection with the case. She said investigators will "go back ... and see if there's anything we could have missed or anything we could have done better'' in terms of spotting Mateen as a threat. She said "people often act out of more than one motivation,'' adding that a motive may never be known. Mateen was shot and killed by police during the attack. According to the above context, answer the following question. What state did Lynch travel to?
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Alabama
- Florida
- Georgia
Answer: Florida

Question: Every so often I see a scenario play out that I find rather disappointing. It works like this: someone posts a topic to their blog that is critical or controversial. This person can either be a community member, commentator, employee or otherwise; it doesn't matter who the person is. Then what happens is a series of comments are posted to that blog entry from readers that are critical of the post, thus challenging the author on their views. The author then either deletes the blog entry or disables the comments based on the feedback. In other words, a viewpoint is shared, an invitation for comment is provided, but that invitation is then revoked when the author of the blog post is dissatisfied with the response from their readers. I have seen this happen countless times over the years and I don't like this. I believe we should all be accountable for our words. Our words have the ability to inspire, to entertain, to challenge, but to also hurt. Actions have consequences, and so do words. As such, when I see someone openly share their thoughts on their blog and invite their readers to provide comments, I see that as a wonderful demonstration of accountability and engagement; debate is a beautiful thing when executed with politeness and respect. To then close that door, seemingly because people disagree with you, is in my mind the equivalent of walking out of a room in the middle of a debate. The excuse when folks are criticized of this behavior is typically "it is my blog and I can run it how I like". This is true: it is your blog, and you can run it how you like, but the true measure of a person is not just in what they say, but also in the conversation and discourse that follows. According to the above context, answer the following question. After a blogger leaves up negative comments what is likely to happen?
OPTIONS:
- the blogger will have more engagement
- the bloggger will grow in popularity
- not enough information
- the blog will have to be taken down
Answer: the blogger will have more engagement

Question: It was a dream, then a place, then a memory. My father built it near the Suwannee River. I like to think it was in the heart of Florida, because it was, and is, in my heart. Its name was Dogland. Some people say you can know others if you know the central incidents that shaped their lives. But an incident is an island in time, and to know the effect of the island on those who land there, you must know something about the river they have traveled. And I must warn you before we begin, I don't know that river well. I visit that time and place like a ghost with poor vision and little memory. I look up the river and see fog rolling in. I look down the river, and the brightness of the approaching day blinds me. I see shapes moving behind me and beyond me, but who they are and what they do, I cannot say. I will tell what I know is true, and I will invent what I believe is true, and that, I think, is all you can ask any storyteller to do. I learned the Nix family history from the stories Pa told. Even at the age of four, I suspected that Pa's stories might not be perfectly true. When Pa said we Nixes came to North America as indentured servants working our way out of debtor's prison, Grandma Bette would make a face and say he couldn't know that. When he said we Nixes had Lakota and Ojibwe blood in our veins, Grandma Bette would say she wasn't prejudiced, but it simply wasn't so: she and Pa and his brothers and sisters were dark because her people were Black Dutch, from a part of Holland where everyone had black hair and black eyes. And then Grandma Bette wouldn't say a word for half an hour or more, a very long time for Grandma Bette to be quiet. According to the above context, answer the following question. Why did the Nixes migrate to North America?
OPTIONS:
- To obtain the American dream
- To escape from religious prosecution
- not enough information
- To escape imprisonment in Holland
Answer:
To escape imprisonment in Holland