input: OPTIONS:
- Not her real mother
- not enough information
- Very permissive
- Very controlling Now, answer this question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: I have no experience with a lazy 21 yr old. Both my older children have always been independent. My oldest moved out when she started college and never moved back in after she graduated. My other daughter wanted to move out as soon as she hit 21 but her dad and I gave her some rules or rather instructions she had to follow before she can pack her bags and move in with the boyfriend. 1st she had to show us that she had 3months rent saved up in her savings account. Not just her half of the rent but the whole rent. Which was about $3,600 dollars. You never know if something happens to her or she looses her part time job she can still pay her rent. Nobody wants an eviction on their record. 2nd since she was still going to school and we were paying for it we wanted to see proof every semester that she was enrolled. Education is a big deal to me. 3rd she had to get on BIRTH CONTROL. I don't want any ooops sorry Mom I am pregnant. Now I can't finish school because I have to work full time to pay for my baby.. I was a teen Mom and I didn't get to go to college so it is 100% important that my kids go and finish. She complied with all or requests and is doing remarkable. She has been out on her own for almost 2years . So I'm really don't have any advice to give but maybe if you show a little tough love and give your kid a kick in the pants and tell hi it's time to grow the hell up. Get a job and pay some rent, or go to school and get an education. No more freeloading around here. Sorry that's all I got. Question: The author's 21 year old daughter probably feels that her mother is: Answer:
A:
output: Very controlling

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: "Congratulations, jackass, you just got us sued." My editor, Sharon, was standing in front of my desk. She was apparently not happy. I shrugged, slouching further down in my chair, trying to hide from her gigantic crazy eyes behind my computer. It was a white laptop with a sticker that said "This Machine Kills Yuppies" slapped over the corporate logo on back. She reached out with one of her freakish man-hands and slammed the screen shut. "Let me try this again. You just got us sued six times over." Sharon Sinclair was a six-foot-tall beast of a woman with a huge mane of wiry black and gray hair pulled back in a pony tail. I had every confidence that she could tear me in two and use my bloody carcass in some kinky hedonistic lesbian cult ritual or something. So I usually tried to choose my words with the appropriate care around her. "Jesus-fucking-Christ, I haven't even had my morning coffee yet, and my head's still reeling from the Louisville Slugger that pummeled it last night. So I really don't feel like dealing with whatever annoying hormonal episode you have going on here." She glared at me silently, watching me squirm a little before asking, "Are you done?" "Probably." "Good," she said with a suppressed grin as she took a seat next to me. "Because I just let you publicly accuse the mayor and the valley's most powerful corporations of conspiring to defraud the taxpayers. So what's your plan for keeping my ass off the firing line?" I tilted back in my chair and met Sharon's gaze. "Look, we knew we'd get a strong reaction. Let them sue. We have e-mails to back us up." "These legal briefings say your e-mails were forged," she responded, waving a thick stack of papers in my face. "Of course they're gonna say that. That's why I made sure to get corroboration. Abrasax confirmed that the e-mails between Dylan Maxwell and City Hall are legit. But you know all this, so I don't know why we're wasting time going over it again." Question: How long did it probably take Sharon to confront the narrator about the situation? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- almost immediately
- not enough information
- several hours
- 1 week

Answer: almost immediately

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA Some people in Seoul on Tuesday said they are happy just to see U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un talking to each other rather than trading threats of war. "I am very happy because it is an epoch breakthrough after 70 years of division," said Lee Jun-keun, a salesman working for a retail business. Last year the two leaders traded insults, with Trump calling Kim "rocket man," and the North Korean leader calling the U.S. president a "dotard," and they both threatened military action as tension rose over the North's accelerated weapons testing to develop an operational nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile capability. But after North Korea successfully test-fired missiles it claimed could carry nuclear warheads capable of reaching the United States, Pyongyang pivoted to diplomacy by suspending further provocations and indicating a willingness to engage in denuclearization talks. Trump surprised allies and adversaries alike by immediately agreeing to meet with Kim, long before the specifics of a nuclear deal could be negotiated. Tuesday's first meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader produced a broad declaration to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons and develop a peace treaty to end the long standing hostiles between the U.S. and North Korea. Trump called the agreement "very comprehensive," but it will be left to negotiators to later resolve differences between Washington's call for complete and verifiable nuclear dismantlement before any sanctions relief is provided, and Pyongyang's demand that concessions be linked to incremental progress. Some in South Korea remain skeptical that the broad commitment reached at the U.S.-North Korean summit in Singapore will lead to North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program. "North Korea did not keep its promise in the past, even after signing the agreement. This is what I am disappointed and doubtful about," said Shim Jae-yeon, a housewife who lives in Seoul. Others... Question: At the end of the summit, what is very likely true about the name calling and antagonistic relationship between the leaders? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- everything remained as it was prior to the summit
- the name calling has intensified and the relationship deteriorated further
- not enough information
- they have ceased trading insults and have a diplomatic relationship

Answer:
they have ceased trading insults and have a diplomatic relationship