*Question*
I recall just one case of its kind. In my first year out of high school in college, I didn't quite get along with one vocal pipsqueak of a guy. Mid-year one afternoon post-dismissal, a small white car drove past dangerously close to me and honked as I made my way to the bus stand home. If there had actually been any malice intended, I would have been caught out totally by surprise. The next day, he wondered aloud why I did not respond or react to him flippantly wanting to ram me with his car as he drove by. To think of it, I had already taken a swipe at another guy whom I suspected of being behind the wheel less than an hour earlier. Professing some half-hearted disinterest, I thought and felt to myself that this episode wasn't over - yet. Fast forward some 4560 days later, this guy is suddenly absent from college for almost a week. Successive class lecturers note that it is not like him to skip classes without a valid reason. Late on the second day of absence, another lecturer asks our class about him. "His car crashed.", I state almost flippantly, with a weak spirit of retribution shining inside my gut. But as you would realize from answering this question it later turned out to be true. While driving at quite a clip near his home, he had barreled through a residential cross-junction and broadsided a delivery van that had charged through the open junction with no regulating traffic lights. The van ended up upside down on the road shoulder and his parents-issued car was out of commission for like, three weeks. He suffered a concussion and a shattered nasal septum from the impact and police issued the van driver a ticket for dangerous driving. Basically, he had joked about striking me with his car hit-and-run and I had later joked to that lecturer and the class that he had crashed his car - and it turned out I was right. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: Who drove the car? Options: A. not enough information B. A young man. C. An older man. D. An old woman
**Answer**
B

*Question*
It has become increasingly common for academics to use social media to communicate with wider audiences. Twitter, like many other social platforms, typically measures success in terms of numbers of followers, likes and retweets, but this only tells us something about the spreading of messages but not necessarily whether the content of the messages is understood or embraced. One way to ascertain this is through network and language analysis, which, used together, can tell us how effective the communication is. Economists tweet less, mention fewer people and have fewer conversations with strangers than a comparable group of experts in the sciences, and use less accessible language with words that are more complex, with more abbreviations and with a more distant tone. Their tweets are less personal and less inclusive than those used by scientists. This is what appeared in April 2017 when we gathered data on tens of thousands of tweets from the Twitter accounts of both the top 25 economists and 25 scientists as identified by IDEAS and Science, including the top three economists at the time, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Erik Brynjolfsson and, on the other side, the top three scientists, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, and Richard Dawkins. At that time those accounts covered roughly two thirds of all the following. The timing is significant because 2016 has been declared the year of post-truth politics, the year in which appeals to emotions (pathos) superseded the significance of factual evidence-based information (logos), affecting people's constructions and interpretations of events. This has been accompanied by the growing prominence of political "alt" movements (e.g. UKIP, the Alt-right) and their aggressive, provocative, and populist narratives, and "fake news" leading to political shock events such as Brexit and the Trump election. The relatively low traction of economists in these public debates has been and continues to be an important issue. Does the public not trust economists? Don't they understand... According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: The analysis lasted Options: A. couple hours B. not enough information C. few years D. couple days
**Answer**
C

*Question*
Jason Munt said him and Carly Furnish got beamed up by a bunch of aliens just after he'd boldly gone with her in the car park woods. It was the boldly going bit people thought was bullshit. Carly Furnish was a good God-loving girl. Trouble was, she'd gone missing. And Jason Munt had a weird crescent-shaped branding in his back, and was sticking to his story. Jason got hauled in by the cops and told he was in a whole heap of trouble. He reported blinding lights and a feeling like floating. He described being strapped to a table by little green men. A cop slapped the table and shouted, 'there's a frigging girl out there.' Jason said he knew how it sounded - the little green men, the whole thing - but it's true: they were little and green, just like out of the comic books. He volunteered tests for drink and drugs. He came back negative on both counts. They left him to stew. He said the last he saw of Carly was her being sucked up in some kind of light ray. He said, 'she seemed asleep - all peaceful, like.' Jason could not explain why he'd been beamed back down to earth, yet they'd seemingly taken Carly all the way off home with them to the Planet Zog. There were plenty of people willing to reckon it proved aliens had mighty good taste, but it wasn't the time nor the place to say it out loud. The cops released Jason after two days of questions. He stuck to his story throughout. The desk sergeant said, 'mark my words, there's a lot of hate out there.' Jason headed straight home. He lived in one of the straggle of council houses leading up to the tip. Carly Furnish and her folks lived two doors down. Supposedly they were distant relatives, but that's what everyone said about folks on that street. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: How was Jason treated after being released from the cops? Options: A. not enough information B. He was showed compassion. C. He was shunned. D. He was ignored as if nothing happened.
**Answer**
C