Question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: My then-teenage daughter and I went to a new restaurant. It was empty apart from the manager. We were told to find ourselves a table, so we sat in an attractive area sort of like a small stage. No waitress came by for 10 minutes, so we decided to visit the restroom; there was just one, with one toilet. But a woman rushed in ahead of us, carrying a bundle of clothes. Several minutes later, when she reappeared, we realized this was our waitressarriving late and pushing us customers out of the way so she could change. OK We each used the restroom and returned to our table. But it was not our table anymore. Along came the manager to explain she needed to set aside the stage-like area for a very special group. My daughter and I had already been debating whether to stay or leave. We stayed only because we were very hungry and worried that we'd have to start waiting all over again if we tried a different place. We were led to our new table: a lonely little table in the hall leading to the toilet. I was ready to get out of there, pronto, but my daughter spotted her favorite meal on the menu. But after another 15 minutes, with the lone waitress not appearing, we both shook our heads and got up Oh, here's the waitress! We ordered. Fifteen minutes later, no food. We got up again and exited past the stage-like area, which was just as empty as it had been when we were ejected. The very special people had not arrivedso (had we been served) we could have enjoyed our meal right there. We did find food elsewhere. The first place closed in less than a month. Good riddance! Question: how long did they probably stay in the restaurant? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- 3 hours
- 15 minutes
- one hour
- not enough information
Answer: one hour

input with options: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Years back, following a transition inside a large company where many people got fired and moved around, the decision was made to give the remaining people more work. Now, let me pause here, when I say, "more work" did not mean more of the existing work they already did. "More work" did not mean work of what they already knew, or signed up for when they were hired. More work meant incorporating a completely different role. For me, I'm a programmer. And "management" decided they wanted programmers to also do BA work. Now, mind you, nowhere on my employment contract does it state I'd have to take a BA role. And nowhere on my employment contract did it state taking a BA role would also require me doing all of my programming work. So, after being pushed a few times to attend BA meetings, I got fed up. So I pulled my manager into a meeting and explained this to him. I said, you have two choices: I do two roles, BA and programmer, and I get a new salary to account for the role. When he asked how much, I said, take my salary and multiply by 1.6. Option 2, I go back to programming, and you never pull me into a meeting again on BA work. It's not what you hired me for, and it's not what you pay me for. When my boss replied, "Our company is not in the position to pay for two roles", I told him, then it sounds like Option 2. And by the way, I don't ever want to have this discussion again. If you want Superman performance, you cannot pay Clark Kent wages. 1 year passed and I was never bothered again about BA roles. Takeaways: Middle managers are one step above one-celled organisms. They can, and will try to get you to do non-role work, with no intention of ever paying you more. They key is to cut it off at the pass. Question: Why did the narrator stop going to BA meetings? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- He was not being paid for the additional BA work
- The meetings were held after 5PM
- not enough information
- The meetings were too long
output: He was not being paid for the additional BA work

Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: The White House says China's proposal to abolish presidential term limits a move that could make Xi Jinping president for life is an internal matter for Beijing. "I believe that's a decision for China to make about what's best for their country," press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at a Monday press briefing. Term limits, Sanders said, are something Trump "supports here in the United States, but that's a decision that would be up to China." The Chinese Communist Party proposed removing the presidential two-term limit from China's constitution, state media reported Sunday. The move would be a further consolidation of power for Xi, who is already seen as one of China's most powerful leaders in decades. On Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump praised Xi, saying he has a "very good relationship" and "great respect" for the Chinese leader. "I think that President Xi is unique. He's helping us with North Korea," Trump said during a White House meeting with U.S. governors. Trump has not specifically addressed the issue of China removing term limits. To some, Sanders' comments are the latest evidence of a break in the long-standing U.S. tradition of encouraging democracy in China, and reflect an unwillingness to criticize undemocratic regimes. "In effect, she is saying that the U.S. is OK with Xi Jinping simply asserting that he will remain in power indefinitely," said Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch. "Does she realize China isn't a democracy?" During the presidential campaign, Trump regularly slammed China and its trade policies. But since becoming president, Trump has toned down the criticism. Instead, Trump has prioritized working with China to address North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. However, several reports suggest the White House could soon announce trade decisions, such as tariffs on Chinese imports, that could strain the U.S.-China relationship. Question: How does Sophie Richardson feel about Communism? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- She favors it.
- not enough information
- She opposes it.
- She worries that Trump is a Communist.

A:
She opposes it.