An archaeological party explore some caverns underground . Dr. Campbell and Dr. Hughes are the two leaders of the archaeological expedition , and get separated . While Dr. Hughes finds an alien corpse with a fossilized diamond , Dr. Campbell finds hieroglyphics at the cost of the party except for Hughes and himself . Two years later , Campbell and his assistant Holly are digging up the bones of Yonggary , a gargantuan dinosaur 50 times the size of a tyrannosaurus rex . Out of nowhere , people slowly are being killed around the site . While Holly is working Dr. Hughes , who has been legally dead for 2 years , goes to Holly and tells her to stop the dig . Dr. Campbell comes into the tent and sends Dr. Hughes off . Holly quits the expedition when another '' Accident '' occurs . In the town bar , Dr. Hughes finds Holly and takes her back to her Hotel room to tell her why he thinks the bones of the Dinosaur , Which he calls Yonggary , are going to bring the end of the world . After explaining , Holly and Hughes go to the site to stop Campbell but it is too late and Aliens resurrect Yonggary . After Yonggary's first appearance , the Army comes in and takes Holly and Campbell to an army base when Yonggary is dispatched by the aliens again . The army sends choppers after Yonggary , but he destroys them . Yonggary is then sent to the city and does some damage , where some jets attack him . Then Yonggary is transported to a power plant where he is attacked by rocket pack soldiers . During the fight , Hughes and Holly find out that the diamond on Yonggary's forehead is the device giving the aliens control of Yonggary .
What question would one ask from this paragraph?

QUESTION: What was Yonggary attacked by after the jets?

Iwasaki's careful respect for the Long Beach program and its lawyers earned him the political capital he needed to complete his takeover in a matter of weeks. "The Long Beach program had strong support in the community so in a situation like that, one has to recognize that it's not like a takeover where I have all the answers and I know best," Iwasaki said. "The people in the community who are working there have the contacts and the knowledge that will allow service to continue." Things have gone less smoothly across town. There, Dudovitz, a longtime poverty lawyer and executive director of the San Fernando Valley's 36-year-old legal aid program, continues to struggle with his hostile takeover of the neighboring San Gabriel-Pomona Valleys service area one year after it was accomplished. On the bright side, Dudovitz has extended his respected program to clients in the San Gabriel-Pomona Valley, and he now operates on a much larger budget, $6.5 million last year. However, his clash with the old San Gabriel program resulted in litigation, bitter feelings and a mission that some say is not clearly focused on serving poor people. "It was a difficult situation that was probably mishandled by everyone," a longtime observer of the public interest community said of the San Fernando Valley-San Gabriel-Pomona Valley merger. "There are very few people who come out as the heroes. Personalities got involved when they shouldn't have. Things were said that caused bad feelings and couldn't be unsaid." Iwasaki's merger with the smaller, 48-year-old Long Beach program was friendly and fast, and no one - not even Long Beach board members - lost a job. When it was over, Iwasaki had $1 million more in federal dollars and two new offices. Long Beach clients regained services they had lost years ago when federal budget cuts and dwindling grants reduced the staff of 15 lawyers to five and cut immigration and consumer law programs. Iwasaki said, "[I judged the transition] better than I could have hoped for."
What question would one ask from this paragraph?

QUESTION: What is the difference in the ages of the Long Beach and San Fernando Valley programs?

The Legal Services Corp. (LSC), a quasi-governmental agency that provides legal aid for the poor, would receive $329 million in fiscal 2004 under President Bush's proposal - the same amount requested in 2003 and approved for 2002 and 2001. If approved, the hold-the-line request for LSC means its budget would erode with inflation for another year, but it could be worse for the organization: Many conservatives fought for years to do away with the LSC altogether, saying legal services attorneys were spending too much time fighting for liberal causes or pursuing politically charged cases against the government instead of representing the needy. Opposition to the organization has cooled since 1996, when Congress approved restrictions (PL 104-134) on the sorts of cases federally funded legal aid attorneys can take. (1996 Almanac, p. 5-36) Republicans cut the organization's budget deeply in 1996, but its funding has recovered slowly. Last month, in the omnibus spending bill for fiscal 2003, the Senate added a onetime increase of $19 million, which, if approved in the final version, would bring the LSC budget to $348 million. The money would go to help states, such as Michigan and Ohio, that lost money when the organization redistributed its funding based on census counts made in 2000 of poor households. If the extra money survives a conference with the House and makes it to the president's desk, LSC supporters may try to include it in the organization's fiscal 2004 funding. The federal government began funding some programs to provide legal assistance to the poor in the late 1960s; the Legal Services Corporation was created in 1974 (PL 93-355). LSC gives nearly all its money to state and local agencies, which provide civil legal assistance to those whose income is less than 125 percent of the federal poverty level - $11,075 a year for an individual and $22,625 for a family of four. Funding for legal services goes to defend needy clients in domestic violence cases, custody cases and other such matters, according to LSC. Since 1996, lawyers who receive money from Legal Services have been prohibited from such activities as lobbying legislatures, filing class-action suits, participating in political demonstrations or strikes, pursuing abortion-related litigation, representing illegal aliens or prisoners, or defending public housing tenants evicted because they were charged with selling drugs
What question would one ask from this paragraph?

QUESTION:
The Senate's onetime added contribution of $19 million to the LSC budget will go towards helping what cause?