"The impact of her interest and work on the provision of legal services in the state of California is immeasurable," said Patricia Philips, senior of-counsel for Los Angeles' Morrison & Foerster. "Its value is felt every day by someone who would otherwise be floundering around in the legal system yet dealing with very serious problems." Zelon's public-interest work has not gone unnoticed. Several organizations that share her commitment to public service - including the National Legal Aid & Defender Association and the State Bar of California - have honored her. Two years ago, Zelon received the Laurie D. Zelon Pro Bono Award, which had been named for her one year earlier by the Law Firm Pro Bono Project, which she'd helped found. "I didn't find out until I was standing in the great hall of the Supreme Court, surrounded by 300 people who were there, that the award had been named for me and was thereafter going to be given in my name. It's very hard to believe, for anyone who knows me well, but I was actually speechless for a period," Zelon said. Zelon faced one of the greatest challenges of her legal career, she said, when her appointment to the bench forced her to switch gears from civil litigation to criminal law. "It was a steep learning curve for me," she said. "It's a whole different set of processes. The rules are different. The case law is a whole body unto itself." Attorneys praise Zelon for her thorough understanding of the law. "She's extremely well-versed in the law," Leon said. "She's very thorough in her research," Wong said. Of course, not all attorneys concur with every decision Zelon makes in court. Some city attorneys disagree with her interpretation of evidentiary statutes when Zelon puts limits on their use of hearsay testimony. But lawyers who have appeared before her say that they appreciate her intelligent interpretation of the law.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer: What were Zelon's greatest challenges in her legal career?

Ratners Group PLC, a fast-growing, acquisition-minded London-based jeweler, raised its price for Seattle-based specialty jeweler Weisfield's Inc. to $57.50 a share, or $62.1 million, from $50 a share, or $55 million, after another concern said it would be prepared to outbid Ratners's initial offer. The other concern wasn't identified. Ratners's chairman, Gerald Ratner, said the deal remains of "substantial benefit to Ratners." In London at mid-afternoon yesterday, Ratners's shares were up 2 pence (1.26 cents), at 260 pence ($1.64). The sweetened offer has acceptances from more than 50% of Weisfield's shareholders, and it is scheduled for completion by Dec. 10. The acquisition of 87-store Weisfield's raises Ratners's U.S. presence to 450 stores. About 30% of Ratners's profit already is derived from the U.S.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer: What percentage of Weisfield's shareholders has accepted the sweet offer?

Dylan and Jez are two orphans who meet in their twenties and vow to achieve their shared childhood dream of living in a stately home . In pursuit of this dream they spend their days living in a disused gas holder , spending as little money as possible and conning the upper classes out of their riches . During one of their biggest cons , their lives are touched by Georgie , who needs money to save the Down's syndrome foundation that her brother attends . When a con goes wrong , the two find themselves in gaol to be released only after their entire fortune is rendered useless because of a recall of 50 notes . It is down to an elaborate plan involving Dylan , Jez and Georgie , to break them out of gaol in order to save their dream . The film , in essence , is part Ealing comedy , part underdog farce with a sequence of madcap adventures set against a striking soundtrack by contemporary Britpop artists . Unlike straight rom-coms or mainstream comedies of the period Shooting Fish contained a generous blending of fact and fantasy .
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer: Where Dylan and Jez characters in a film?

If you build a campfire, you start with a large stack of sticks and logs. As the fire burns, the stack slowly shrinks. By the end of the evening, all that is left is a small pile of ashes. What happened to the matter that you started with? Was it destroyed by the flames? It may seem that way. What do you think happened? The truth is that the same amount of matter still exists. The wood changed not only to ashes, but also to carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other gases. The gases floated off into the air, leaving behind just the ashes. Although matter was changed, it was not created or destroyed. Because the same amount of matter still exists, we can say that matter is conserved. You may wonder how it can be conserved if something is now missing? Assume you had measured the mass of the wood before you burned it. Assume you had also trapped the gases released by the burning wood and measured their mass and the mass of the ashes. What would you find? The ashes and gases combined have the same mass as the wood you started with. This example illustrates the law of conservation of mass.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer:
What can cause wood to change to ashes, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and other gases?