Q: The young man (boy, really) played with his fingers in the garish light cast from the lone bulb in the concrete bunker. He scratched at an imaginary itch on his right hand (just below his thumb) to take his mind off the man in the lab coat who sat across from him at the beaten, scarred, wood table. It didn't work. And whoever this man in the lab coat was, he was insistent about paperwork. He had three inches clipped onto a weathered clipboard which he flipped through with precision. "Can I offer you a glass of water?" asked the boy's captor in a calm, sensitive tenor. The boy, Kurt, continued to scratch the imaginary itch, which had leapt magically from his right hand to the left. Eventually the falseness of the itch would be deduced, and the lab coated man would disappear out of the cell and return with... God knows what. He had seen torture hundreds-if not thousands-of times on TV, and he was glumly certain that there would be no commercial breaks for him. "Can I offer you a glass of water?" The question was repeated without urgency, like a forgetful waiter. The itch now leaped with the dexterity of a trained flea onto the boy's leg, and the dutiful fingers followed. He watched as the man in the lab coat, without name tag or company insignia, studied his stack of papers attached to the clipboard. Several yellow forms near the top half inch were labeled 27B. The man frowned and wrote a note on the top page. "Note: Find out who isn't duplicating 27B in Pink." "I'm sorry," he said, "I wasn't listening. Was that a yes or no to the water?" Kurt remained in his chair, almost motionless, except for the itching-and-scratching routine. It had leapt again, this time onto his scalp, and the twitching fingers followed. He wondered how long he could keep this up without drawing blood. Question: When did the itch move to the other hand? Options: A. During the TV commercial break B. not enough information C. After his leg. D. After the captor asked if he wanted some water === The correct answer is
A: D

Q: In 1981, when I was nine years old, my father took me to see Raiders of the Lost Ark. Although I had to squint my eyes during some of the scary scenes, I loved it in particular because I was fairly sure that Harrison Ford's character was based on my dad. My father was a palaeontologist at the University of Chicago, and I'd gone on several field trips with him to the Rocky Mountains, where he seemed to transform into a rock-hammer-wielding superhero. That illusion was shattered some years later when I figured out what he actually did: far from spending his time climbing dangerous cliffs and digging up dinosaurs, Jack Sepkoski spent most of his career in front of a computer, building what would become the first comprehensive database on the fossil record of life. The analysis that he and his colleagues performed revealed new understandings of phenomena such as diversification and extinction, and changed the way that palaeontologists work. But he was about as different from Indiana Jones as you can get. The intertwining tales of my father and his discipline contain lessons for the current era of algorithmic analysis and artificial intelligence (AI), and points to the value-laden way in which we "see" data. My dad was part of a group of innovators in palaeontology who identified as "palaeobiologists" meaning that they approached their science not as a branch of geology, but rather as the study of the biology and evolution of past life. Since Charles Darwin's time, palaeontology especially the study of the marine invertebrates that make up most of the record involved descriptive tasks such as classifying or correlating fossils with layers of the Earth (known as stratigraphy). Some invertebrate palaeontologists studied evolution, too, but often these studies were regarded by evolutionary biologists and geneticists as little more than "stamp collecting". Question: Who took the writer to see Raiders of the Lost Ark? Options: A. his father B. his son C. his mother D. not enough information === The correct answer is
A: A

Q: The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill Thursday that would protect from arbitrary dismissal the special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. The measure, backed by 10 Democrats and four Republicans, would codify Justice Department regulations that the special counsel can only be fired by the attorney general or a designee for "misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or other good cause." The proposal would give the special counsel 10 days to challenge a dismissal in court. If a court determines the firing was not for "good cause," the special counsel would be reinstated. The measure would also require the Justice Department to notify Congress when a special counsel is appointed and to report the findings of an investigation. While marking a strong show of support for Special Counsel Robert Mueller who is under frequent attack by President Donald Trump and some Republicans, the bill is unlikely to become law in the face of Republican opposition. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said last week that Trump will not fire Mueller and that there was no need to bring the measure to the Senate floor for a vote. House Speaker Paul Ryan has also opposed the idea. The legislation was introduced by four Senators earlier this month after Trump's sharp criticism of an FBI raid on his personal lawyer's home and office rekindled fears that Trump may fire Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who supervises Mueller. Mueller is heading the federal investigation into Russia's electoral interference and possible collusion with the Trump presidential campaign. Trump has said there was no collusion and repeatedly denounced the probe as a "witch hunt." Despite his harsh criticism of the Special Counsel and the Justice Department, Trump has dismissed reports that he's privately talked about firing Mueller. He told the cable show Fox and Friends on Thursday that he'll "try and stay away" from the Justice Department, but "at some point, I... Question: Who is Mueller? Options: A. attorney general B. deputy attorney general C. special counsel D. not enough information === The correct answer is
A: C