It would have to be this Donald Trump once cashed a $0.13 check In 1990, writer from a "Spy Magazine" had a great idea for a prank: "What would happen if you sent checks for small amounts to celebrities and saw who cashed them, putting to test the theory that every man (and woman) has a price? In their words: "We could however, send them checks for minuscule sums of moneysums so small they couldn't fund as much as a minute of the recipients' existenceand see who would bother to bank these teensy amounts of money." Spy thought "some subterfuge" would be necessaryit'd be suspicious to get a check from the magazine that lampooned so many of the intended recipients. This was specifically true for Trump, who Spy once famously referred to as a "short-fingered vulgarian." So, they created a fully funded and incorporated company called National Refund Clearinghouse, which allowed them to open a checking account. Then they drafted a letter explaining that the check was a refund for a small overcharge that had occurred in 1988what the celebrities had been overcharged for was never mentioned. They sent the checks out (initially for $1.11) to 58 well-known people like Cher, Henry Kissinger, and, of course, Donald Trump. Of the 58, 26 cashed the checksDonald included. The magazine drafted a followup letter and checks for $0.64 to those 26 people to see who would take more free money. Thirteenincluding Donald Trumpdeposited the checks worth two quarters, a dime, and four pennies into their banks. Then they went for one last score: in honor of those 13 people, 13 more checks for $0.13. Two people cashed them: a Saudi arms dealer named Adnan Khashoggi, and Donald Trump. Seriously." I really don't know if this is the most "cheapskate" thing, on just CRAZY fiscal responsibility. But if I had to pick, this would get my vote resources: Splinter - The truth hurts Question: After the $0.13 checks were deposited, Spy Magazine probably: Options: A. published a story about sending out the checks B. not enough information C. asked for all their money back D. sent out another check for $0.04 === The correct answer is
A

I was once distinctly unsettled by a utility man who called to read the gas meter. We were living in an old house at the time and I was home alone with the youngest child (who was around six months old), balanced on my hip as I opened the door. The visitor looked genuine, dressed in the expected uniform. He was around 6.3 and probably not the most tidily presented utility man I'd met, but I believed him to be genuine and willingly invited him in out of the foul weather. It was pouring down outside, a freezing cold winter's day. As I closed the door I remembered that I should have asked to see his company I.D. , so as I opened the meter cupboard and switched on the light, I politely said, 'Oops, I should have asked to see your I.D. if you don't mind?. He stood there in front of the door and made no move to produce his card or do anything in fact. He just glared down at me in the most menacing way and said in a very sinister voice 'Isn't it a little bit late for that now? What are you going to do if I tell you I don't have it?'. There was an embarrassed silence. He continued to stare down at me without making a move for what seemed like minutes but was probably seconds. He didn't produce his I.D., instead he almost grudgingly read the meter as I looked on and then he swiftly left without saying goodbye. I closed the door and locked it, and then took a while to get my pulse rate back to normal and to realise I'd just learned a very big lesson. Such a creepy individual, I didn't make that mistake again. Question: The woman narrating probably thinks that? Options: A. not enough information B. The man was there to rob or harm her. C. The utility worker wouldn't produce ID because he was offended. D. The worker didn't bring his ID that day. === The correct answer is
B

*Question*
New sexual harassment and racial discrimination lawsuits are rocking the already scandal riddled Fox News Channel. Three new lawsuits were filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Two allege racial harassment at Fox News, while a third alleges sexual harassment at Fox News Radio. The cases increase to 23 the number of past or present Fox employees represented by attorney Doug Wigdor, the majority having cases alleging racial hostility by a since-fired financial executive. Fox said Monday that the lawsuits have no legal basis. Kathleen Lee, a Fox News Radio employee of more than 10 years, alleges that radio anchor Ron Flatter subjected her to "unrelenting sexual harassment" after the network hired him in 2013. A former Fox employee, Adasa Blanco, said she alerted Fox executives about racially hostile behavior on the part of former Fox controller Judith Slater more than eight years before the executive was let go. Slater has denied charges of racially hostile conduct. Blanco, who is Hispanic, said that Slater made fun of her accent. In the lawsuit, Wigdor said Fox "knowingly harbored and protected" a racist employee for more than eight years and misrepresented to the public that it fired Slater quickly upon learning of her behavior. Naima Farrow, another former Fox employee who worked for Slater, said she was fired without warning or explanation in 2015, less than three days after telling superiors she was pregnant. Farrow, who is black, said Slater mockingly referred to her as "girlfriend." Fox News said in a statement that it is committed to a diverse workplace free from discrimination, and takes any complaint seriously. In these cases, Fox "took prompt, effective and, when necessary, strong remedial action," the network said. "We believe these latest claims are without legal basis and look forward to proving that the company at all times has acted appropriately, and lawfully, in connection with these matters." The new legal claims come as Fox News is battling a series of... Question: What did Fox think about all the cases against their employees? Options: A. they thought they better have some good attorneys B. not enough information C. they thought they were in for it D. they thought they should have addressed the issues when they presented === The correct answer is
**Answer**
B