I remember back in the late 1970's when I first started investing in property as a young guy, being taken to a house that felt EXTREMELY cold, strange, and rather chilling. Okay it was an older house that need some renovation work, but there was something about the place that just did not seem right. But despite that, it was available for purchase at what seemed to be a very attractive price always a good starting point. Anyway, the real estate agent finished taking me around the property answering the questions that I had, and I left with a plan to do some costings before making a decision. But something was niggling me and making me feel a little uncomfortable, so I decided to investigate the property further. A couple of days later I was around at a friends house. He was in the Police force and as it happened he was in the same neighbourhood, I mentioned this particular property that I was looking at buying. He asked me the actual address after which he 'kindly' informed me that that that house had been the scene of a murder 6 months previously. It turned out that the property had been rented to a homosexual couple and that after an argument, one had murdered the other in the bath and then proceeded to cut his head off. Apparently the head was subsequently discovered a week later in the trunk of a car that had been abandoned up by a local golf-course. Less than impressed that the real estate agent had been less than forthcoming with me, I made the decision to not to proceed with the purchase. As they say in the property business 'Location, Location, Location' is always an important factor in determining the value of a property. However despite that being a good location, it was reputation that deterred me on that occasion. Sometimes there are situations where even the best makeover will not work. Question: After the end of the story the young man went on to: === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- Move back home with his parents
- not enough information
- Buy a different house
- Choose an apartment
Buy a different house

Of course, the most unforgettable classmate I had was also the most vicious bully. I attended a boarding school for badly behaved children and it had its fair share of bullies who had been expelled from mainstream schools. But this particular bully had even the teachers running scared. When he went off on one, it could take up to four teachers or members of care staff to get him under control. On my first night at boarding school, he stamped on someone's face and left them permanently disfigured. I never saw anything that bad again but it stayed with me and I could never sleep properly in that school again. On another occasion, it blew up and there were several members of staff restraining him when he farted. To see the teachers all moaning and groaning and huffing and puffing whilst trying to hold him down was hilarious, literally tears in their eyes. He was unpredictable and he didn't care. I once saw him swing a hammer at another pupil and throw snooker balls at another, and he used to punch as if he was throwing something, so it would result in a painful blow. Eventually, the staff couldn't cope with him as they were just as scared as we were. He was removed from the school and placed in a secure unit. The night he left, several of us cried with relief. Last year, I was reading an article in a newspaper when a name caught my eye. It seems he became a hopeless heroin addict at some point and had died in his flat on an overdose of prescription drugs and smack. I felt sad when I read it but I couldn't work out why. Maybe it was because my brother died in the same manner? He was certainly a character, an absolute nutter and ruthless bully who had everyone fearing him. Most definitely the most unforgettable classmate. Question: At the end of the story, the bully is probably: === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- Now a teacher
- Now an article writer
- Deceased from drug abuse
- not enough information

Answer: Deceased from drug abuse

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Saturday slammed China's militarization of disputed South China Sea islands, insisting that weapons systems recently deployed in the area were meant to intimidate and coerce Beijing's neighbors. The comments came during a speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual Asian defense forum in Singapore. In the speech, Mattis laid out the broader U.S. strategy for a "free and open" Indo-Pacific region. "China's policy in the South China Sea stands in stark contrast to the openness our strategy promotes. It calls into question China's broader goals," Mattis said. Specifically, the Pentagon chief mentioned China's deployment of anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles, electronic jammers, and the landing of a bomber aircraft at the Paracel Islands off the coast of Vietnam. "Despite China's claim to the contrary, the placement of these weapon systems is tied directly to military use for the purposes of intimidation and coercion," Mattis added. Though much of the world is focused on an upcoming summit between North Korea and the United States, this year's Shangri-La Dialogue has focused primarily on the region's long-term future and how to deal with a more assertive China. Beijing has begun projecting power beyond its borders, most notably through the construction and militarization of islands in disputed areas of the South China Sea. China claims nearly the entire South China Sea, despite overlapping claims by countries including Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan. Last week, the United States disinvited China from the Rim of the Pacific exercise (RIMPAC), a major international maritime exercise to be held later this year, citing Beijing's behavior in the South China Sea. Mattis on Saturday referred to that disinvitation as an "initial response" to China, but he did not outline any additional steps that might be taken. "The U.S. will continue to pursue a constructive, results-oriented relationship with China, cooperating when possible and competing vigorously where... Question: What likely happened at RIMPAC later in the year? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- China ended up participating.
- China did not participate.
- It didn't take place.
- not enough information
China did not participate.