Q: My mom has been married three times, (nothing against her) and the first two times ended up a total mess. My dad, the first one, ended up just being a shot gun wedding. He was abusive and too young to be married with a child. They got divorced shortly after. A couple years later she met a man named Rob. He was fun, loving, kind, great with me, everything she had been looking for. They dated for.. a few months I think? Maybe a year. Then they got married and we moved to Texas. They were married for 5 years and she was just as miserable those 5 years. He was mean, he lied about everything, he was addicted to porn and stole from his job. He was controlling and wouldn't let anyone else handle money. It was a rough house to grow up in and hard on my mom as she tried to keep me from the abuse. Eventually he cheated on her with one of her best friends and she kicked him out. I didn't even notice he was gone for a week because he was so absent in my life. He apologized, turned into the man she first met and they tried again. He again cheated on her and she left him again, that time for good. They ended up finalizing the divorce a year later. I remember her telling me that she confronted him about his change of character and he had told her "Everyone puts on an act at first." As if it was a normal thing. He had depression and I believe he wanted everyone to be just as miserable as he was. After they got divorced he had on and off again relationships, got a girl pregnant and got married, then she divorced him. He lived with his cousin for a while. The only stability he ever had was with my mom and I. I think that's why he wanted to leave. Stability meant he had to become an adult and he didn't want to have to take responsibility. According to the above context, answer the following question. How does the speaker's mother probably feel about her second husband?

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Pleased
- Jealous
- Disgusted

A: Disgusted

Q: NOT A PROBLEM: Person A: I was really surprised to learn that your mum used to live in Wales. Person B: My mum? No, she never did that. You must be thinking of someone else. Person A: No, I'm not. I told her how my parents are from Cardiff and she said she'd lived in Newport until she was 18. Person B: She did not. Person A: Yes, she did. Person B: Nope. She'd have told me. Person A: Well, where do you think she grew up, then? Person B: In Yorkshire, of course. Like the rest of us. Person A: You're wrong, you know. Person B: Bet I'm not. Person A: OK, well, I'm going to phone her and ask her. You'll see. PROBLEM: Person C: You still have my Kindle. Person D: I do not. I gave it back to you two weeks ago. Person C: No, you didn't. You said you were going to, but you never actually gave it to me. Person D: I did. I remember. It was when we were having lunch in Starbucks. Person C: No, that's when you said you'd left it in your car and would get it when we'd finished eating but then you forgot all about it. Person D: Look, I gave it back to you. I think you're just trying to get a new Kindle out of me, and let me tell you: it ain't gonna work. Person C: You're just trying to keep my Kindle for yourself. Well, I'm not going to let you get away with it. I'm going to tell your mum, so there. It really depends whether the parents are in a position to shed any light on the contentious issue or if involving them would just make an awkward situation worse. If parental input will be helpful, welcome the chance to confer with them; if it won't, let the other person do what they will and trust your parents to have more sense than to get involved in a purely private argument. According to the above context, answer the following question. Why is Person C going talk to Person D's mum?

OPTIONS:
- Person D is accusing them of trying to cheat Person D
- Person C thinks Person D is intentionally keeping their kindle.
- Person D does not think their mum lived in Cardiff.
- not enough information

A: Person C thinks Person D is intentionally keeping their kindle.

Q: The black-and-white aerial footage shows a line of purported Taliban insurgents slowly walking along a path in a lightly forested desert in Afghanistan's western Farah province. Suddenly, the screen flashes to white as the men disappear in a fireball the result of a bomb dropped from a U.S. MQ-9 "Reaper" drone. "Taliban fighters on the run following Afghan-led offensive in #Farah province, #Afghanistan. Video shows U.S. airpower (MQ-9s) in support," declared a short message accompanying the video, which was posted on the official account of the U.S. military in Afghanistan. Subsequent footage showed more Taliban scrambling, in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid the airstrikes. The Pentagon footage was released Wednesday, as U.S., NATO and Afghan government forces were locked in a fierce battle with the Taliban for control of the capital of Farah, which borders Iran. The tweet was unusually graphic. While the U.S. military often releases footage of buildings or vehicles being destroyed, it does not as frequently distribute videos that show individuals being bombed. Less than 24 hours later, the U.S. Air Force posted its own Afghanistan-related tweet that raised eyebrows this one referencing a viral audio clip that has sparked a lighthearted online debate among those who hear the word "Laurel" and others who hear "Yanny." "The Taliban Forces in Farah city #Afghanistan would much rather have heard #Yanny or #Laurel than the deafening #BRRRT they got courtesy of our #A10," read the Air Force tweet. The Air Force has since apologized and deleted the tweet, saying it was sent in "poor taste." The USFOR-A tweet remains. In a statement to VOA, a Pentagon spokesperson said the tweets do not represent a new social media strategy. "As with any other organization, the post was an attempt to bring awareness to a major/ongoing organizational activity by tying it to references or conversations already trending with their established audiences," said Lieutenant Colonel Kone Faulkner. According to the above context, answer the following question. Why did the Air Force send the tweet?

OPTIONS:
- Because it had a new social media strategy
- Because it was in poor taste
- not enough information
- Because it felt superior to the dead terrorists

A:
Because it felt superior to the dead terrorists