Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Well we're not married (yet), but one time my boyfriend playfully spanked me. Hard. I know he didn't mean to hurt me, but I was mad about it all. Day. Long. I just couldn't get over the fact that he technically hit me! I started to consider things like, "Is he really sorry?" "Will he do it again?" "Should I leave him?" And gave myself reasons like "He didn't mean to!" "He's been apologizing all day!" "He was just playing!" "He meant to have fun, He's sorry!" Yet countered it with one simple statement, "Yeah that's what all abused women say." In the end, I felt the question that should determine whether or not I should leave is: "If I stop talking to him tomorrow and can never see him or speak to him again, will I be okay with that?" and the answer was "No", so obviously I shouldn't leave him. He is very well aware that I was considering leaving him, (I have a very strict 0 tolerance policy of abuse in my relationships, as I was abused terribly growing up,) and he still apologizes to this day, but he has certainly made it a point to never do that again. I definitely trust him, and he actually was being playful, but otherwise that has been the only "real" hitch we have come across. I mean, we argue, but that's only when either of us are mad, and it's usually over small stupid stuff. Like, really stupid stuff. We argued over traffic signs before, LOL. It always leads to me saying the argument is completely retarded and we drop it and just cuddle or something. Really not worth getting worked up about. Edit: Fixed some typos. I'm on my phone so my thumbs can't quite reach LOL. Question: How did the writer counter all the reasons she considered for why her boyfriend spanked her? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- She thought that would be what all abused women would say.
- She said it wasn't as bad as the abuse she had growing up.
- not enough information
- She thought his apology would be good enough to make her drop the matter.

Answer: She thought that would be what all abused women would say.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- because he was supporting the police officers
- because he was protesting Johnson's death
- because he was shot by the police
- not enough information
Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: The violent ambush that killed five Dallas police officers and wounded seven more could have been a lot worse, the city's police chief says. Dallas Chief of Police David Brown told CNN Sunday that the slain gunman told police negotiators he wanted to "kill white people, especially white officers." Bomb making materials and a journal were found at Johnson's home during a search Friday. "The material were such that it was large enough to have devastating effects throughout our city and our North Texas area," Brown said. Micah Xavier Johnson, 25, was killed by police in the deadly attack Thursday night during a protest against police killings of African American men. Since the shooting deaths of two black men by white police officers over two days last week, protests have been held across the country. Scores of demonstrators have been arrested, with one flash point being the southern city of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where DeRay McKesson, one of the most prominent activists linked to the police reform protest movement Black Lives Matter, live streamed his own arrest. Police defended his arrest as a matter of public safety, but demonstrators told U.S. news outlets they believe McKesson was targeted. McKesson was freed on bond Sunday afternoon after being charged with obstructing a highway. "I remain disappointed in the Baton Rouge police, who continue to provoke protesters for peacefully protesting. There's a lot of work to be done, with this police department specifically,'' he said. But Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards disagreed with McKesson's assessment. The governor told a news conference Sunday that he is proud of the state's law enforcement officers, calling their response to the protests "moderate." In the northern city of St. Paul, Minnesota, where a second man, Philando Castile, was shot to death last week by a policeman after a traffic stop for a broken tail light, hundreds of protesters hurled firecrackers, rocks and bottles at police on Saturday. The heavily armed officers used smoke grenades and... Question: Why was McKesson arrested? Answer:
Answer: because he was protesting Johnson's death

input with options: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: David Gauntlett makes a good point in his newest book (Making Media Studies: The Creativity Turn in Media and Communications Studies) and that is that traditional forms of media studies are no longer applicable. Gone are the days of massive institutions and production companies, gone are the traditional audiences and simplistic texts. In, is the new age media companies, the everyday media makers, the consistent consumers and the fantastical mess of The WWW. While universities are pumping out the same content areas since the 1980's (e.g. institutions, production, audiences and texts) that are only relevant to a handful of media forms (cinema, television, online broadcasting and publications), the rest of the world is moving on. David Gauntlett so rightly says that creativity in media, should also refer to thinking creatively about the subject. What are the new ways of running media and communication studies? How has the subject itself changed? What approaches and methods can help media and communications studies to become innovative and useful in spheres beyond itself? David Gauntlett encourages a kind of call to arms, an acquiescence of the incapacities of the old system and a redirected gaze to the future needs of media students and media studies programs. Inspired by Tim Ingold's book Making, David believes media studies should have making at it's front and centre. He also believes the ability to do things with media should be embraced over and above the ability to talk about what others do with media, or what media does to us. The notion is that media studies should be hands on, that it should be all about ideas and critical engagement and this should be expressed through actual making. To borrow three key distinctions from the anthropologist Tim Ingold: 1. It's about learning WITH media rather than ABOUT media. 2. There is an intent to move FORWARD rather than looking BACKWARDS at how things are. 3. It's aims are TRANSFORMATIONAL rather than DOCUMENTARY. Question: When did David Gauntlett encourage a new call to arms? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- Before his book was published
- not enough information
- During the publishing of his book
- After his book was published
output:
After his book was published