(CNN) -- Jo-Wilfried Tsonga ended Roger Federer's hopes of winning a record-equaling seventh Wimbledon title on Wednesday as the French 12th seed staged a stunning fightback to reach the semifinals. Federer appeared to be cruising into the last four after winning the first two sets, but Tsonga inflicted the Swiss world No. 3's first defeat from that vantage point in 179 grand slam matches. It was only the third time in the 29-year-old's glittering career that the 16-time grand slam champion had surrendered a two-set lead. Tsonga, ranked 19th in the world, triumphed 3-6 6-7 (3-7) 6-4 6-4 6-4 on Centre Court, serving out to love as he earned a clash with second seed Novak Djokovic. The Serbian, who beat Tsonga in the 2008 Australian Open final, ended the dream run of Australian 18-year-old Bernard Tomic. Tsonga defeated Federer for just the second time in six meetings, their first on grass. "It was amazing. I played unbelievable. It's never easy to come back against Roger. I'm so happy, it's crazy," the 26-year-old told reporters after reaching the semifinals at Wimbledon for the first time. "He's the biggest champion in the sport. He has achieved so much and is the best player in the world. To be two sets down and come back was unbelievable. I served really well. Against Djokovic I will have to come out and do the same again." Federer has now lost in the quarterfinals two years in a row, being beaten by eventual runner-up Tomas Berdych in 2010. "Jo played great. Really from start to finish I don't remember seeing a break point after I broke him in the first game," Federer said.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?

QUESTION: The defeat of Federer by Tsonga was the first loss from a two-set lead in how many grand slam matches, and how many times has Roger Federer lost from this same vantage point?

If you beat a dog in Schuylkill County, you'll probably get a $100 fine. If you repeatedly beat a woman, you'll probably get the same fine. In 2001, county judges heard 98 Protection From Abuse cases, finding the defendant guilty in 48 percent of those cases, either after a hearing or through a technical violation or plea. Of those found guilty, the majority were ordered to pay court costs, plus a $100 fine. No defendants were ordered to pay more than a $250 fine for violating the court order. In 27 percent of the cases, the charges were dismissed or the defendant was found not guilty. In the rest of the cases, charges were withdrawn or the matter is not yet resolved. Sarah T. Casey, executive director of Schuylkill Women in Crisis, finds it disturbing that in most cases, the fine for violating a PFA is little more than the fine someone would get for cruelty and abuse toward an animal. "In most of the counties surrounding Schuylkill County, the penalties given for indirect criminal contempt are much stiffer than those in Schuylkill County," Casey said. "What kind of message are we sending those who repeatedly violate Protection From Abuse orders? That it's OK to abuse women in Schuylkill County, because you'll only get a slap on the wrist?" Under state law, the minimum fine for contempt of a PFA is $100; the maximum fine is $1,000 and up to six months in jail. Like others who are familiar with how the county's legal system does and doesn't work for victims of domestic violence, Casey believes some changes are in order. Valerie West, a manager/attorney with Mid-Penn Legal Services, with offices in Pottsville and Reading, regularly handles domestic violence cases. She finds fault with the local requirement that a custody order must be established within 30 days after a PFA is filed. West said she feels a custody order should be allowed to stand for the full term of the PFA - up to 18 months - as it does in many other counties in the state. "It places an undue burden on the plaintiff, in terms of cost, finding legal representation and facing their abuser - not to mention a further burden on the system to provide those services," West said. "It may be difficult for the parties to reach an agreement so soon after violence has occurred.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?

QUESTION: Who finds fault with the local requirement that a custody order must be established within 30 days after a PFA is filed?

Miss Anderson dined out, and preferred to suppose that she had no time to think until she was on her way home along the empty road round Jakko at eleven o'clock that night. Then it pleased her to get out of her rickshaw and walk. There was an opulent moon, the vast hills curving down to the plains were all grey and silvery, and the deodars overhead fretted the road with dramatic shadows. About her hung the great stillness in a mighty loneliness in which little Simla is set, and it freed her from what had happened, so that she could look at it and cry out. She actually did speak, pausing in the little pavilion on the road where the nursemaids gather in the daytime, but very low, so that her words fell round her even in that silence, and hardly a deodar was aware. 'I will not go now,' she said. 'I will stay and realize that he is another woman's husband. That should cure me if anything will--to see him surrounded by the commonplaces of married life, that kind of married life. I will stay till she comes and a fortnight after. Besides, I want to see her--I want to see how far she comes short.' She was silent for a moment, and the moonlight played upon her smile of quiet triumph. 'He cares too,' she said; 'he cares too, but he doesn't know it, and I promise you one thing, Madeline Anderson, you won't help him to find out. And in five weeks I will go away and leave my love where I found it--on a mountaintop in the middle of Asia!'
What question would one ask from this paragraph?

QUESTION:
Why does Miss Anderson not want to go now?