Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Shortly after five, the hospital called. More precisely, the emergency room phoned to ask if Ray had a bed. Ray pretended to consult his admission log, just as he always did. The nightly hospital call meant one of three things: the chemical dependency floor was full (highly unlikely), the individual in question had fallen under the hospital's "one treatment episode every three months" sanction (also known as the Black List, and only moderately unlikely), or the prospective client had no insurance (in Ray's experience, very likely). The folks at the hospital knew, as did Ray, that federal law prohibited him from turning away individuals requesting detoxification services if he had an open bed. The hospital was generous enough to spring for a cab voucher for the intoxicate. In Ray's experience as well, overnight admissions were less interested in detox than in free food, a free bed and complimentary meds. For his two hour paperwork investment and aggravation, he would receive the benefit of knowing the client slept until noon then slipped out the side door and into another binge. Any bills for service generated for the brief stay would return in a week or so stamped "No Such Address" or simply "Return to Sender". On average, the clients of addictions services managed to muster a raging 25% of them who would ever pay a dime toward their bill. The night shift admission payment percentages were a quarter of that quarter in good years. Thus, the frequent calls from the hospital. They had little better luck in getting good addresses (or even with those, a client who stayed sober long enough to give a shit). No one relished treating the uninsured and uninsurable. It was fiscal suicide. The hospital was perfectly willing to let the local experts in deadbeats handle the workload. Tonight, Ray could tell them no. He liked telling them no, especially when it was the truth. Question: How does Ray probably feel about the last minute addmisions from the hospital? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- annoyed
- happy
- enthusiastic

Answer: annoyed

Question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: It was a nice summer evening. A cool breeze blowing. Birds singing. Leaves rustling. The waters of the pool shining, shimmering in the sunlight. I was sitting on the steps of the pool, my legs submerged in water.Those blue depths were irrestisible. I inched a bit further in. Water to my waist a little more. closer to the blue..just a little morewater to my chest yes, keep goinga bit morewater to my neck.almost there.the blue gaze of those depths held me in aweoh my..so beaut- Going up a sort of endless escalator. I can't see very well what's in front of me. It's all very dark. I can sense someone behind me, but I dare not look back. For some reason I cannot see my feet. In fact, I cannot see any of me at all. It feels very strange and well,creepy! I want to whistle, to kinda comfort myself, but it feels like I've lost the ability to speak. My mind just doesn't know how to carry out this desire to speak. It feels unnatural.. That someone behind me pokes me in my(invisible) back. Its'(his/her?) touch is strangely warm, then icy. I still don't look back.yes, that's the key, don't look back. It's a test. Just don't look back and you'll- Snap! Back into the pool, panting. Everything is blurry. There are people gathered around the pool, screaming. A hand extends toward me. I reach for it. Well, I'd love to tell you what happened after that, but the thing is, I don't even know myself. For just at that precise moment, my wretched alarm decided to beep-beep. And I never got to see the ending! Wait, did you mean "went to the other side" in reality? Don't be ridiculous! Question: How long do you think this whole experience took? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- It was an overnight dream.
- 5 minutes.
- Several days.
- not enough information
Answer: It was an overnight dream.

Question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: WHITE HOUSE "The United States will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility," President Donald Trump vowed Monday amid growing outrage over his administration forcibly separating children from parents at the U.S. border with Mexico. Trump, speaking in the White House East Room during a National Space Council meeting, warned that "what's happening in Europe we can't allow that to happen to the United States not on my watch." Earlier in the day, on the Twitter social media platform, the president inaccurately linked migration in Germany to a rising crime rate. In actuality, the latest German government statistics show reported crimes at the lowest level in 30 years. Tough border enforcement in the U.S. has led to the family breakups, with nearly 2,000 children being sent to mass detention centers or foster care from mid-April to the end of May, according to government officials. The regular White House briefing was delayed several times Monday amid the furor as officials huddled with Trump in the West Wing. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders finally introduced Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen after 5 p.m., and she defended the administration's "zero-tolerance" policy that is breaking up families at the southwestern U.S. border. Nielsen forcefully pushed back at the negative media coverage, asserting that what U.S. authorities are doing is properly enforcing the law. "What has changed is that we no longer exempt entire classes of people who break the law," she said. Asked about critics accusing the administration of using children as "pawns" to demand legislative actions from Congress, the DHS secretary replied, "I say that is a very cowardly response," adding it is clearly within Congress' power "to make the laws and change the laws. They should do so." Trump's Republican party controls both chambers in Congress, and the family border policies were set by his administration. In a tweet displaying photographs of a detention facility, showing children... Question: How does Nielson feel about the negative media coverage? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- The liberal media is responsible for allowing immigrants to break the law
- Negative media coverage is just to distract people from other issues
- Stricter immigration laws should be enforced
Answer:
Stricter immigration laws should be enforced