Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: Back in middle school, at least I think it was, I had art class. I didn't particularly love it but it was interesting enough at the least to hold my attention. We got to class and the teacher pulled up a list of instructions on the projector. She had each of us follow the instructions and she gave us 20 minutes to complete all of them. It may even have been a bit of a race too, to see who finished it first. This becomes a lot more evident in a second. I can't recall the exact details of the instructions, except that clearly it had to do with art such as having to draw a bunch of things. Anyways, we all went one by one down the instructions getting increasing nervous as to try to be the first one to finish. The class goes quiet while we work. Then I get to the last instruction which reads something along the lines of: "Step 15: Skip steps 114 and put your pencil down." You gotta be freaking kidding me. We're all so confused and mad at ourselves for not reading the whole of the instructions first. She turned this into a lesson for how we need to learn to read all the instructions first and then start, which was pretty clever. She got us! I remember this vividly to this day. But I look back now on this "prank" and I realize that she was kind ofwrong. Sure if the instructions are short like 15 steps it might be good to glance through before you start. But what about a whole load of instructions? Who the hell is going to read through the instructions for how to build their Death Star LEGO set before even starting to build it. Just a waste of time really. Note: I have never built a Death Star LEGO set. Question: How long did the students have to complete the instructions after the teacher brought them up on the projector? Options: - Thirty minutes. - not enough information - Fifteen minutes. - Twenty minutes.
Twenty minutes.

Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: WASHINGTON They called themselves "crusaders" for a reason. The three Kansas militiamen planned to blow up an apartment complex housing Somali refugees during the 2016 presidential election, unleashing what one of them called "Crusades 2.0." But their plan was foiled after their arrest just weeks before the election, highlighting the changing enemy list of a movement founded on the back of anti-government activism a generation ago. And with the election of a president whose policies many militia members support, the urge to confront the government appears to have lost some of its urgency. Instead of railing at the government, they have in recent years turned their venom against new-found foes: Muslims, immigrants, the Antifa. "Some of the militia groups have been refocusing their attention on secondary enemies for the movement," said Mark Pitcavage, who researches extremism at the Anti-Defamation League civil rights group. Often lumped together with other right-wing groups, the anti-government movement comes in different forms. There are the "preppers," so called because they stockpile water, food and other essentials in preparation for civil unrest. There are the "survivalists," people who learn skills to "live off the land" in case of a disaster. There are "sovereign citizens" such as the suspect in the recent shooting at a Waffle House in Tennessee who are opposed to paying taxes and believe they should decide which laws to follow. And then there are the militiamen who conduct regular military-style training to resist a government they see as engaged in a global plot to take away their guns and constitutional rights. The modern militia movement dates back to a series of events in the early 1990s, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Among them: the 1992 election of Democratic President Bill Clinton and an FBI attack the following year on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, an event seen as "evidence of an out of control government willing to attack citizens." Under Clinton, the number... Question: what are survivalists? Options: - not enough information - people who learn how to live off the land - people opposed to paying taxes - people who stockpile water and food for civil unrest
people who learn how to live off the land

Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: I normally do not post certain types of things on my blog or on social media, like political messages, but today I feel compelled. I've been thinking for the last few days about the most recent school shooting in Parkland, and my overwhelming emotion right after grief is rage. I am so angry it makes me cry and for those of you out there who know me, angry-cry is the end-stage, top-of-the-gauge level of angry for me. I am angry that as a nation, we continue to wring our hands and bemoan each mass shooting but we don't take any action to stop the next one. I am angry that our elected officials have failed us in the most spectacular way possible by being unable to work together or to set aside special interests to protect the lives and safety of Americans, including our most vulnerable citizens, our children. I am angry that time and time again, we the people and our elected officials weigh the value of human lives against countless other things (Second Amendment, special interests, party disagreements, inertia, whatever) and the value of human life comes up short in the calculations. I am angry at myself for believing at any point in the last several years that I could trust lawmakers to address this epidemic and I am angry at myself for feeling so helpless that I have not personally taken action. This stops now. I am angry that in 2012, 20 6-7 year old children and 6 adults were murdered in Sandy Hook and in the 5+ years since, we have done nothing meaningful to stop this. To me, this is tantamount to saying that we as a nation are OK with this. I don't think we are, but that's the message we're sending if we don't force our government to do something. According to the New York Times, there have been 239 school shootings nationwide since Sandy Hook with 438 people shot, 138 who died. Question: Why did the author write the text? Options: - Because they are mad at children. - not enough information - Because they are angry about shootings. - Because they are mad at the New York Times.
Because they are angry about shootings.