Problem:OPTIONS:
- Sold Ubuntu
- not enough information
- continued to promote Ubuntu
- gave up on Ubuntu

As many of you will have seen, unfortunately the Ubuntu Edge campaign did not reach our goal of $32million. The final total reached was $12,812,776. I am hugely proud and thankful to everyone who pledged, supported the campaign, wrote about it, and helped to spread the word. Some have described us not meeting the goal as a "failure". I don't see it that way. Let's be honest: $32million was always an incredibly ambitious target. We would have liked to have done it for less money, but building a F1 superphone doesn't come cheap (and remember that the $32million didn't include any costs for software engineering and project managementCanonical were providing that for free). It was an ambitious target, but disrupting an industry is ambitious in itself, and we gave the crowd-funding campaign our best shot. The story does not end here though. I am not surprised that we didn't hit this ambitious $32million target, but I am surprised at what we did achieve. We broke all the crowd-funding records, garnered media attention across CNBC, Engadget, The Independent, TechCrunch, the BBC, T3, Stuff, The Verge, The Guardian, Wired, pandodaily, Fast Company, Forbes, The Telegraph and more. Every single person who put their support into the Ubuntu Edge campaign should be proud of their achievements and we are all thankful for your tremendous and inspiring support. One thing to be critically clear about is that the Ubuntu convergence story does not end here. We are as voraciously excited and committed to bringing this Free Software convergence story to the world as ever before; our work with OEMs, Carriers, and ISVs continues apace. We have fantastic work going on across all fronts, and we are on track to have a 1.0 release of the Ubuntu Phone platform in October. Question: After the end of the story, the author's team === The answer to the above question is
****
A: continued to promote Ubuntu

What do apples, pears and oranges all have in common? If you answered that they are all fruits you are absolutely correct. If you answered that they are all good for your health you are spot on again. Fruits used to be a staple in many diets, however in amongst all of the low carb and anti sugar chaos, many people are now avoiding them. In a rush to rid the diet of 'toxic sugar', fruit has fallen on the wayside. However, many studies have shown that fruit is not linked to any adverse health effects, quite the opposite in fact. Most recently researchers in Sweden discovered that eating a diet high in fruits could reduce the risk of an often lethal form of aortic aneurysm. The study collected data from over 80,000 people over a 13 year period and found that people eating at least two whole fruits per day, reduced the risk of developing an abdominal aortic aneurysm by almost a third. The main fruits that were eaten were apples, pears, bananas, oranges and other citrus fruits. The fruits' high antioxidant levels may offer protection by reducing oxidative stress and inflammation. Eating whole fruits can also reduced the risk of developing diabetes. Earlier this year a study published in the British Medical Journal revealed that certain whole fruits in particular blueberries, grapes, apples and pears could lower the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. The study found that over an 18-year period, 6.5% of the 187,382 participants developed diabetes, but those consuming at least two serves of fruit per week reduced their risk by up to 23%. In the same study those who consumed two or more serves of fruit juice per day increased their risk of developing diabetes by as much as 21%. As Tim wrote in a previous blog post, this is reason why you should be eating your fruit, not drinking it Question: Why did people start to avoid fruit? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- They wanted to do research in Sweden.
- They wanted to get rid of toxic sugar in their diet.
- They wanted to develop an abdominal aortic aneurysm.
They wanted to get rid of toxic sugar in their diet.

Was it the things she told me or the situation I was in? I was working with someone who, basically, should never have been hired into the job, and then should not have been kept as long as she was. She was entirely inadequate for the role we performed. I was a new graduate and so lucky to get a job in my field, pretty much right out of university. We worked in a small office of three. The third was a sales rep and out visiting clients most of the time. She was, more or less, my superior, though the company made it clear that she was not someone to emulate yet gave me no one else to look to for advice or guidance. She would constantly say "this place will leave you to sink or swim" (amongst other phrases, all along these lines). That's probably the worst saying ever, though I can't really consider it ridiculous because, frankly, I absolutely see why she would say that (for example, I met my manager once during my interview and then the next time was about four months into being hired that should tell you the level of support given). But I cannot even explain to you the way this statement biased me against this company and the job I was doing. I was lost and truly believed that I couldn't do any better (because I was sinking and couldn't figure out how to swim on my own). Yes, you may have issues in whatever job your in but to tell a newbie that they have to figure it out on their own that's pretty ridiculous. If this is something you hear or think and asking others for help or finding a supportive environment is not an option try replacing it with "learn to fly on the way down". At the very least, you won't have such a negative frame of mind. Question: The narrator worked in the office: === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Just after university
- After high school
- From a young age

Answer: Just after university

Problem: OPTIONS:
- the president's party
- not enough information
- the democrat's party
- the independent's party
Q: 2018 is a congressional election year in the United States, and President Donald Trump is urging his supporters to get motivated to vote as both parties prepare for November. "The people who voted for us become complacent a little bit, they are happy," Trump told supporters during a recent speech on tax reform in Cincinnati. "They sort of take it for granted, they sit back and then they get clobbered because the other people are desperate and they get out, and they have more energy." Trump predicted that Republicans will do better than expected in November when all 435 seats in the House of Representatives are at stake and 34 of the 100 Senate seats. "I think because of what we've done, because of the tremendous success we've had, I have a feeling that we are going to do incredibly well in '18, and I have to say this, history is not on our side," he said. The president is right. History is not on his side. Midterms are typically unkind to the president's party, which on average loses about 30 House seats and a handful of Senate seats. The losses are worse if the president's approval rating is below 50 percent, which could be the case this year. Trump's approval rating has ticked up in recent weeks, but the average has him just above 40 percent, not a strong position with a midterm looming. "You know, you have a very unpopular president. And if Democrats take a broad path, they should win lots and lots of seats," said Jim Kessler of Third Way, a center-left advocacy and research organization. Gallup has noted historically that presidents with an approval rating above 50 percent lose an average of 14 House seats in midterms, while those below 40 percent can expect to lose about 36 seats. Democrats need to gain 24 seats in the House and two seats in the Senate to regain the majority in both chambers. Question: Which party loses an average of about 30 House seats and a handful of Senate seats? === The answer to the above question is
Answer:
the president's party