TL:DR: I un-professionally get mad at a customer and verbally slam the door on her way out. I was working a shift at a chain cafe one afternoon in England, it was during the lunch rush, so we had a back up of customers lined up to the exit. See the problem with the chain is that all of our customers mostly range from midlife crisis to half-a-foot in the grave, so once a customer lines up, they don't leave and they extend the queue. Plus this is a chain cafe so I've got a manager who's constantly on my back to speed up because someone is on her back to drive numbers up: this results in the line putting stress on my air-hostess smile, but they don't call it work for nothing. Now I'm not the only one stressed, a customer lines up during lunch, they're hungry and wish that Euclidean laws would suspend themselves so that they did not have to deal with the fact that I can't deal with a customer at the speed of light. Well one eldritch horror declares that my coffee took too long and does her rendition of the 1933 Hitler speech to the rest of the customers with an addendum that she will take her business elsewhere. Now my chain are pretty big in England, so if a customer wants to slap me around with a 'customer is always right' the script dictates that I do everything in my power to make sure they come back, and Cthulu knows this, well: I'm stressed, I don't like her face and she's given me an opportunity for me to give her the polite 'fuck off'. All I say is 'Good' and move on to the next customer. Hitler-lite phones my corporation to voice a complaint, so a suit comes out and asks the team who did it, I fess up so I can save the time and not have a reason to hate one of my co-workers. I get a lecture and a warning, the end. How old was the customer? Pick the correct answer from the following options: A. not enough information B. 25 C. 50 D. 62
A

(Question)
Every so often I see a scenario play out that I find rather disappointing. It works like this: someone posts a topic to their blog that is critical or controversial. This person can either be a community member, commentator, employee or otherwise; it doesn't matter who the person is. Then what happens is a series of comments are posted to that blog entry from readers that are critical of the post, thus challenging the author on their views. The author then either deletes the blog entry or disables the comments based on the feedback. In other words, a viewpoint is shared, an invitation for comment is provided, but that invitation is then revoked when the author of the blog post is dissatisfied with the response from their readers. I have seen this happen countless times over the years and I don't like this. I believe we should all be accountable for our words. Our words have the ability to inspire, to entertain, to challenge, but to also hurt. Actions have consequences, and so do words. As such, when I see someone openly share their thoughts on their blog and invite their readers to provide comments, I see that as a wonderful demonstration of accountability and engagement; debate is a beautiful thing when executed with politeness and respect. To then close that door, seemingly because people disagree with you, is in my mind the equivalent of walking out of a room in the middle of a debate. The excuse when folks are criticized of this behavior is typically "it is my blog and I can run it how I like". This is true: it is your blog, and you can run it how you like, but the true measure of a person is not just in what they say, but also in the conversation and discourse that follows. What is probably true about the author? Pick the correct answer from the following options: A. he doesn't read blogs B. not enough information C. he hates blogs D. he likes blogs
(Answer)
D

Ques: When Patch finally found his way out of the seed-pod, Toro was gone, and there were rats all around him. Some hid beneath the huge black seed-pods, some scuttled in the shadows of the nearby mountain. Patch knew from their smells there were at least a dozen of them. There was another smell too, mixed with that of the rats. The very same unsavory squirrel-smell he had detected in Silver's abandoned drey. "What do you want?" Patch asked, from his perch atop the mound of seed-pods. He was concerned but not yet frightened. Rats and squirrels were neither friends nor enemies. Squirrels were bigger and stronger, but rats were far more numerous. There were legends of long-ago wars between the two species, but no squirrel Patch knew had ever been attacked by rats. Squirrels lived aboveground, in the sun; rats frequented the night and the dark underworld. Of course, squirrels found rats disgusting and disagreeable -- but so did all other animals. An unusually large rat climbed up to the top of a seed-pod. It was almost as big as Patch himself. Rats usually avoided light, but this one stood unafraid beneath the sun, and demanded: "Who are you?" "I am Patch son of Silver, of the Seeker clan, of the Treetops tribe, of the Center Kingdom," Patch said. "Who are you that asks?" "I am Snout," the rat replied. "Why are you here?" "I came to look for food." "This is our food. These mountains are ours." "Your food?" Patch asked, bewildered. There was no ownership of food in the Center Kingdom, not until it had actually been eaten. "That's ridiculous. It's food. It belongs to whoever finds it first." "Then you belong to us," Snout hissed. "Because we are the rats who will suck the marrow from your broken bones." Who owns the food in the Center Kingdom? Pick the correct answer from the following options: A. Squirrels of The Treetops Tribe B. Rats C. Nobody D. not enough information
Ans: C

Question: U.S. President Donald Trump filed his annual financial disclosure form this week with the Office of Government Ethics, the U.S. government's ethics watchdog. Under U.S. law, all top government officials are required to file annual financial disclosure documents with the agency. In Tuesday's 92-page filing, Trump acknowledged that he'd reimbursed his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, last year for more than $100,000 for unspecified expenses incurred in 2016. Trump's lawyers have previously said the president reimbursed Cohen for $130,000 that Cohen paid to an adult film star to keep her quiet about a sexual tryst she said she had with Trump 10 years earlier. Trump has denied having the tryst but recently confirmed reimbursing Cohen to stop "false and extortionist accusations" about it. The financial disclosure did not say why Trump had not listed the payment in his previous financial filing, but the ethics agency said the reimbursement constituted a loan that should have been reported. That has set off a firestorm of criticism and calls for an investigation into whether Trump violated federal law by omitting the payment from his 2017 disclosure. The controversy has overshadowed other details in Trump's financial disclosure, which is the only publicly available snapshot into the president's finances his debts, assets and income from dozens of companies and partnerships around the world. Here are six noteworthy takeaways from the report: Golf losses. Trump, an avid golfer who frequently visits his golf courses, sometimes in the company of world leaders, listed 17 golf companies in his disclosure form, with 13 reporting losses. Overall, golf-related revenue plunged to $210 million from nearly $300 million from the previous reporting period. However, the president's struggling golf courses in Turnberry, Scotland, and Doonbeg, Ireland, improved their earnings, with income at the Turnberry property growing to more than $20 million from $14 million. Trump plans to travel to Scotland during his visit to Britain this summer. What is probably true about the financial disclosure? Pick the correct answer from the following options: A. not enough information B. no items were actually omitted C. items were intentionally omitted D. items were unintentionally omitted
Answer:
C