Problem:OPTIONS:
- More than 10 years
- More than a year
- not enough information
- Less than a year

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: WASHINGTON U.S. President Donald Trump disclosed in a financial report filed with the government's ethics watchdog Tuesday that he had reimbursed his personal lawyer more than $100,000 for unspecified expenses. In his annual financial disclosure form, which was released by the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) on Wednesday, Trump acknowledged that he had "fully reimbursed" his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, in the range of $100,000 to $250,000 in 2016. Trump's lawyers have previously said the president reimbursed Cohen for $130,000 Cohen paid to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the final weeks of the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign to keep her quiet about a sexual tryst she said she had with Trump 10 years earlier. Trump has denied the affair but recently confirmed reimbursing Cohen through a monthly retainer to stop "false and extortionist accusations" made by Daniels about an affair. Cohen has also acknowledged making the payment. The disclosure said that while the payment to Cohen was not a "reportable" liability, Trump chose to list it "in the interest of transparency." It did not say why Trump had left it out of his 2017 financial disclosure documents, though one of the president's lawyers, Rudy Giuliani, has said that Trump didn't know about the payment when he reported his finances last year. The Office of Government Ethics, in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, said it had determined that the payment to Cohen constituted a loan that should have been reported. However, it said the information Trump provided in his latest financial form met "the disclosure requirements for a reportable liability" under the Ethics in Government Act. Under the Ethics in Government Act, top government officials are required to report all debts in excess of $10,000 during the previous reporting period. "Knowingly or willfully" falsifying or failing to file reports carries civil and criminal penalties. Trump listed several hundred million dollars in liabilities in his financial report. Critics seized on... Question: How long did it probably take for the Office of Government Ethics to investigate: Answer:
****
A: Less than a year

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: LOS ANGELES/WASHINGTON As U.S. political candidates make their final appeals, voters in 35 states will decide policy issues Tuesday that include legalizing recreational use of marijuana and restricting access to guns and ammunition, voting yes or no on nearly 160 state ballot initiatives. California's Proposition 64, which is leading in the polls, could create a multibillion-dollar marijuana industry by legalizing the recreational use the drug for adults in the state. Similar measures are on the ballot in Arizona, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts. Marijuana could be legalized for medical use in Florida and three other states. Medical marijuana is already permitted in half the 50 U.S. states, and recreational use is allowed in Alaska, Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and the District of Columbia. Marijuana is banned under federal law, but U.S. officials have taken a hands-off approach on the issue. Voters in Maine and Nevada are considering measures that would expand background checks for gun purchases, which is already required for buying guns from dealers, by extending the provision to private sales. Californians will consider measures requiring background checks for buyers of ammunition and banning high-capacity ammunition magazines. Washington state has a measure that would allow the courts to bar the sale of guns to individuals deemed an extreme risk to themselves or others. Californians are considering whether to eliminate the death penalty with Proposition 62, or to maintain capital punishment and make the process more efficient with Proposition 66, which supporters say makes it more fair to victims of violent crimes. Twenty states and the District of Columbia have abolished or overturned capital punishment on the grounds that it is unequally applied to minority populations and that innocent people are sometimes convicted. South Dakotans will decide whether to make statewide offices nonpartisan and create a citizens commission to redraw voting districts after each 10-year national census, removing... Question: Why have states overturned capital punishment? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- It is unequally applied to minorities and innocent people are sometimes convicted.
- Innocent people are sometimes convicted.
- not enough information
- It is unfairly applied to minority populations.
It is unequally applied to minorities and innocent people are sometimes convicted.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- On the main road
- Near the narrator's house
- Near a European folk instrument shop.
Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: He picked me up at my house, and after getting back on the main road he turned up the volume on the radio. "Why do you even listen to that stuff?" I asked. It was schlock-rock, simple and unadorned wailing backed by incessantly grating guitars. "I don't really know." "You don't actually like it, do you?" I knew he didn't; I knew what he preferred. His apartment walls were lined with recordings of classical, even archaic music, European folk instrumentals. Maybe rock, once in a while, but he had had something amplified and pitch-altered on every time we'd been together lately. "I think we listen to pop music to punish ourselves," he said. "An aural bed of nails to compensate for our sins." "Those sins being...?" "I don't know... sometimes, don't you ever get so sick of everything you just want to cram your ears full of garbage to spite it all?" This was not normal second-date dialogue, but Phillip and I had known each other for a long time. "It's like you'd rather inflict pain," he said, "like you want to inflict pain on yourself, just for pure spite against... the stuff around us." "You'd choke on garbage to get back at a culture who would do it for you anyway?" "Yeah, kind of. Does that make sense?" "In a very cliched, pop-psychology sort of way, yes." I turned down the volume, then shut the radio off entirely. "Don't you ever want to hurt like that?" he asked. "It's why you read some thriller instead of a classic, it's why you watch TV instead of reading a book, it's why you watch a sitcom instead of PBS, it's why you watch Family Guy instead of the Simpsons." (I might have snorted at this point.) "Because you have to do the bad thing." Question: Where does Phillip live? Answer:
Answer:
not enough information