Read the following context and answer the question. Context: April 1, 2006 Walter died today. Found out this morning over breakfast. Suicide. Walter. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it. Suicide. Walter wasn't suicidal. I know that, know it for a fact. But he is dead. Why? I am not foolish enough to suspect "foul play" as they say in the mystery stories. No one cares enough about a community college art teacher to murder him. But suicide? Something is wrong here. Very wrong. April 2, 2006 I didn't realize until this morning that yesterday was April Fools day. Some kind of sick joke? But that's not like Walter either. He was a little crazy, but not that kind of crazy. Still I keep half expecting to pick up my voice and hear his voice yell, "Gotcha!" But it is no joke. I know he is dead. (Later) Got a package today. From Walter. Scary considering what I wrote about expecting him to call. I can't express the chill I got when I saw his name on the label. A message from the dead. Surely it's not a good Omen. It's a painting. Or at least I think it is. The package is the right shape, and knowing Walter it seems likely, but...I haven't yet worked up the courage to open it yet. I'm afraid of what I might find. April 3, 2006 Went to the funeral today. Walter's wife, Martha, was in hysterics. Can't say I blame her. It was awkward being there seeing someone in the most vulnerable possible condition. I didn't know her that well. Walter and I rarely interacted outside of work, so I have very little knowledge of his personal life. Sylvia went up to her and hugged her even though she'd never met her before in her life. It must be something with women to be able to make that kind of spontaneous connection. I just shook her hand, and told her I was sorry. I don't make a habit of crying in public, but seeing her so shaken up brought tears to the edges of my eyes, and I did nothing to wipe them away. After five years of friendship it's the least Walter deserves of me. One other thing. The package. It's still sitting there in my study. Mocking me. That's how it feels anyway. Should... Question: Immediately after the end of this text, the package is: Answer:
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- burned
- unopened
- at Walter's house

Answer: unopened

Question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: We live our lives online, so naturally, online dating is becoming our primary source of meeting others. I have been on most dating sites and some are good, some not so much. Tinder remains on the top five dating sites out there, so I'm sharing my personal experience. THE TRUTH ABOUT TINDER Did you like me on Tinder? If you are a man in my geographical area, odds are you did. The first week I joined I received over 400 likes and nothing speaks desperation like that, does it? If I want to hook up and leave, there's no better place to go. If you're going to Tinder looking for a real connection, then sorry you've lost your damn mind. Tinder was created with the hit and quit it hookup in mind and trust me no matter what he puts in his profile, that's what he's looking for. Crap, that's what I was looking for let's be honest. Here are some universal truths about Tinder and most online dating sites. If the picture looks too good to be true, it probably is. People lie. A large majority are going to be married pretending to be single. They have a handful of others on the hook while they're talking to you. The usual way it goes on Tinder is you like someone's picture and if they like you back, you're a match. Then you can message each other and often you will get one or two messages and that's it unless you come out strong on the sexting and I guarantee you get your man. Tinder is oozing with low attention spans. I can pretty much guarantee he is going to ask for pictures, and not of your face. Question: The writer probably thinks that: Answer:
OPTIONS:
- people do not lie on Tinder
- not enough information
- Tinder is a place for real relationships
- Tinder is not a place for real relationships
Answer: Tinder is not a place for real relationships

Question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Saturday slammed China's militarization of disputed South China Sea islands, insisting that weapons systems recently deployed in the area were meant to intimidate and coerce Beijing's neighbors. The comments came during a speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual Asian defense forum in Singapore. In the speech, Mattis laid out the broader U.S. strategy for a "free and open" Indo-Pacific region. "China's policy in the South China Sea stands in stark contrast to the openness our strategy promotes. It calls into question China's broader goals," Mattis said. Specifically, the Pentagon chief mentioned China's deployment of anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles, electronic jammers, and the landing of a bomber aircraft at the Paracel Islands off the coast of Vietnam. "Despite China's claim to the contrary, the placement of these weapon systems is tied directly to military use for the purposes of intimidation and coercion," Mattis added. Though much of the world is focused on an upcoming summit between North Korea and the United States, this year's Shangri-La Dialogue has focused primarily on the region's long-term future and how to deal with a more assertive China. Beijing has begun projecting power beyond its borders, most notably through the construction and militarization of islands in disputed areas of the South China Sea. China claims nearly the entire South China Sea, despite overlapping claims by countries including Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan. Last week, the United States disinvited China from the Rim of the Pacific exercise (RIMPAC), a major international maritime exercise to be held later this year, citing Beijing's behavior in the South China Sea. Mattis on Saturday referred to that disinvitation as an "initial response" to China, but he did not outline any additional steps that might be taken. "The U.S. will continue to pursue a constructive, results-oriented relationship with China, cooperating when possible and competing vigorously where... Question: What does Jim Mattis think about militarization of the South China Sea islands? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- he is upset
- he is indifferent
- he agrees with them
- not enough information
Answer:
he is upset