Jack and Mackenzie wanted to do something fun during their day off from school. They knew that the library had story time on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Their mother told them they could go to the library every Tuesday for their story time. They packed up the car and drove to the library, ready for a fun morning. When they arrived to the story room, there were lots of other children their age, all sitting cross-legged and ready for the story of the day. The teacher told them they would be reading "The Wild Horse". She began to tell the story of Majestic, the wild horse who could not be calmed. His people had tried and tried to break him, but he was wild at heart. Every time they took him to the river to drink, he would run straight into the water and get soaking wet! He would splash and play until he was ready to go back home, where he would sleep for hours, having worn himself out playing.

Question: "What would Majestic do when brought to the river to drink?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "Run away from the people"

Response: no

The protagonist Preetam ( ( ( Ganesh , on a visit to Eva Mall amidst a heavy wind , spots a pretty girl , Nandini . While staring at her , he inadvertently falls into a manhole . Nandini rescues him from the pit , but in the process loses her heart-shaped watch she had just bought . While accompanying his mother to Madikeri , Preetam confronts a man named Jaanu . Jaanu , who has been following Nandini , beats up Preetam thinking that he is in love with Nandini . Preetam , unaware that Jaanu has vowed not to allow any one near Nandini , trashes Jaanu and his gang in return . In Madikeri , Preetam meets Nandini unexpectedly . He identifies himself and expresses his love towards her and offers to tie the watch as an indication for their marriage . Nandini , who is already engaged rejects his request . Still , Preetam vows to marry Nandini if she meets him again . In the meantime , Preetam discovers that his host in Madikeri , Col. Subbayya is Nandini's father , who is pretty much deaf , and Nandini's marriage is a just a week away . Dejected , Preetam throws Nandini's heart-shaped watch away . But Nandini calls him over the phone and taunts him to return . Delighted , Preetam goes in search of her watch and brings it back . While searching it , he spots a rabbit , Which he calls Devadas , and brings it along with him . Since Nandini's friends are due to arrive from Mumbai for the marriage , Preetam takes Nandini to the railway station . The train from Mumbai is delayed by five hours , so Nandini and Preetam decide to visit a nearby hill-temple .

Question: "What object did Preetam throw away, then search for and what did he find in addition?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "A watch"

Response: yes

Nathan read the package of words in silence, his only motions the steady progress of his eyes and occasional replacement of pages. Allan sat nervously across from him in a chair Nathan had probably upholstered himself, a patchwork design of fabric containing easily more stuffing than any other furniture item of the period. At long last, Nathan reached the end and set down his reading on the table between them. Allan leaned forward unconsciously. "It's the best story you've ever written." Allan exhaled and leaned back into the chair, his face relaxing in imitation of his thoughts. "So," he asked, "you don't think it's a waste of ink and paper, a futile expedition into morbidity or literary debauchery?" "Heavens, no," said Nathan, aghast. "This is one of the strongest works I've read in ages. It speaks to the deepest storyteller's instinct within us all, yet is entirely original. My dear friend, you have done it. Oh, they may rail against you at first; they may decry you as a heathen or a literary savage; but while those in power say such things, others will read your tales and see their true worth. Believe me when I say that you will be read a century from now." Allan, though dubious as to that possibility, felt some temptation from the compliment; mainly, it granted him the encouragement he still needed. Nathan promised to show the story to a printer he knew and Allan left it with him, then walked home under the spreading maples with a smile lingering on his face. He felt now that perhaps Nathan was right; although the man was somewhat peculiar, he had both an unimpeachable honesty and a certain propensity for insight. Certainly, it was undeniable that the stories had an originality to them. His mind's strangest fruit had ripened at last, and he found the taste less bitter than expected. These thoughts and others like them filled his head as he walked the long road home. It was evening, and the sky burned orange in the west when he neared home at last.

Question: "Who wrote the story?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "Allan wrote the story"

Response: yes

Unfortunately, because the zooming is rather fast, it is easy to miss the rest of the sentence, so as you correctly note, some viewers got an incorrect impression. It would have been fair for Moore to point out this possible misinterpretation on his website. However, the claim of deliberate distortion is ludicrous for several reasons: a) Moore clearly states that "before he came to Flint", Heston gave an interview. In the excerpt from said interview, we can see that it is from March. If Moore wanted to deceive his viewers, why would he say this, and show the month the interview was published? b) Why should Moore leave the words "Clinton is on the Today Show" visible in the text, which is necessary to correctly interpret the highlighted part? I reviewed the sequence several times and it is perfectly possible to see this text without pausing. c) Both the "soccer mom" interview and the sequences showing the NRA rally make no effort to distort the fact that this rally happened months after the fact. The camera lingers on Bush/Cheney posters, and the protestor is quoted as saying that "we wanted to let the NRA know that we haven't forgotten about Kayla Rolland". You make the hysterical claim that the interview "may be faked" (on the basis that no name is shown for the interviewee), but if Moore had faked it, why the hell should he put this sentence in the protestor's mouth, which directly contradicts the conclusion that the rally happened hours after Kayla's death? Why did Moore, the masterful deveiver, not edit this sequence out? This makes no sense. Opinions may vary on how tasteless it was for Heston to hold a pro gun rally on the location of the nation's youngest school shooting months after the fact, but this sequence of "Bowling" is without doubt the most unfair to Heston. The claims of deliberate distortion don't hold up when viewing the whole scene, though -- as "Hanlon's Razor" states, one should never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence. The somewhat inept editing of the NRA press release has led some viewers to wrong conclusions, which is unfortunate, but Moore's critics have no interest in viewing the matter fairly. Had they done so, Moore himself would probably have apologized for the gaffe. In any case, at no point does Moore make a false statement, in contradiction to claims by critics that his documentary is "full of lies".

Question: "What text gave viewers the wrong impression"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "Clinton is on the Today Show"

Response:
yes