*Question*
With regular money now coming in from the Guardian column, my regular contributions to other publications and the modest subscription revenue from The Friday Thing, I had been living something of the high life since arriving in London. I had started hanging out with the great and the good of the dot com world: attending launch parties for new sites, going to parties to celebrate them staying in business for a whole year, eating their lunches, drinking their booze and learning their secrets while they tried to convince me to write about them in my column. Many of these online entrepreneurs had become my friends and I'd managed to find myself a new girlfriend - Maggie, a Welsh journalist who was a restaurant reviewer for a food and drink website. This was a brilliant blag: it meant we could eat at some of London's best restaurants and never pay a penny. Life was wonderful: The Friday Thing and the Guardian column meant that my plan to use the Internet to become hugely famous and successful was firmly on track, I'd made lots of new friends, and, on top of all that, I was getting laid and eating gourmet food for free. Even Sam Lewis was jealous, and he was rich. Meanwhile, the people I was writing about were not having such an easy time of it. 2003 was a really strange time to be covering the 'new media' industry - mainly because no one was really sure for how long there would be an industry left to cover. The dot com boom of 1999 seemed like a millennium ago: a period in history as crazy as the tulip craze or the South Sea Bubble look to us now. The first signs of trouble for the industry had come in 2000. As the century turned, so had the market and - to use the parlance of analysts - the boom had turned out to be a bubble. And then the bubble had burst. Question: For how long was the main character writing about the dot com industry? Options: - not enough information - About 4 years - Around 10 years - Several months === The correct answer is
**Answer**
About 4 years

*Question*
It may seem as though the 2020 U.S. presidential election is a long way off. But good luck telling that to President Donald Trump or a dozen or so Democrats contemplating a White House bid two years from now. Trump has already been out on the campaign trail testing themes for his expected re-election bid. "Our new slogan for 2020. Do you know what it is? Keep America great!" Trump told cheering supporters at a recent rally in Elkhart, Indiana. But Trump also made it clear he is concerned about this year's congressional midterm elections, in which opposition Democrats are favored to make gains. "And all of the great momentum that we are having as a country on jobs, on safety, on security, on our military it is all at stake in November," Trump warned at the Indiana rally. 2020 is expected to produce a bumper crop of Democratic presidential contenders who will vie for their party's nomination. Those in the group range from the well-known like former Vice President Joe Biden and 2016 contender Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont to a younger, less recognizable contingent that includes California Senator Kamala Harris and New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Several potential Democratic presidential contenders spoke about the party's future at a recent conference in Washington hosted by the Center for American Progress, a Democratic-leaning public policy institute in Washington. Among the speakers was Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who said Democrats face an uphill battle to win back control of Congress this year because of long-standing Republican advantages in winning a majority in the House of Representatives. "We can't climb that hill by ignoring the millions of Americans who are angry and scared about the damage this president and this Republican Party have done to our democracy," Warren told the conference to a round of applause. "We can't ignore it and we shouldn't want to ignore it." Question: Who is not expected to campaign for presidential election? Options: - Elizabeth Warren - Trump - not enough information - Joe Biden === The correct answer is
**Answer**
Elizabeth Warren

*Question*
This is a beauty myth that I have been wanting to bust for a while as I am surprised how many people actually believe it. I am quite vain so hate having visible grey hairs. Having naturally dark brown hair means that even a single grey hair is very noticeable. From the age of about 22 or 23 I discovered that I had about five grey hairs floating about. As soon as I could see them I'd pull them out. Then, a few months later when they were rearing their ugly heads again - pluck, out they'd come again! Up until I was about 27 or 28 I only had these 5 grey hairs, well that was all I could find anyway. Then from 28 onwards they have been inviting their friends and relatives to move in and I am slowly losing the plucking battle (side note: this increase in grey hairs at 28 was also the year that I got married...I wonder if their is any correlation between getting married and going grey??). Whenever I was having a conversation with someone about grey hairs and I'd mention that I pull mine out, they'd look at me horrified - 'you can't do that, seven more will grow back in its place' they would all warn me. Even my hairdresser was horrified that I plucked my grey hairs. One day when she was straightening my hair I could see a stray grey sticking up and it was driving me crazy. I asked her to pull it out and she refused saying that I'd end up with more if she pulled it out. I have never believed this old wives tale, mostly because for five years I kept plucking my greys yet they didn't increase in number. Plus it made no sense to me. Why would plucking greys cause more greys to grow when the same is not true for your coloured hair. Imagine if it were true - that would mean that the cure for baldness would be to pluck out your hair as each hair you pluck causes seven more to grow in its place - doesn't really make sense, does it? Or worse, each time you waxed your legs, seven hairs replaced each pulled one - what state would your legs be in now? Question: After the end of the story, the narrator is probably: Options: - not enough information - Without grey hair - no longe rmarried - Still having grey hair === The correct answer is
**Answer**
Still having grey hair