Q: CHAPTER XLV

Law Business in London

On the Monday morning at six o'clock, Mr Oriel and Frank started together; but early as it was, Beatrice was up to give them a cup of coffee, Mr Oriel having slept that night in the house. Whether Frank would have received his coffee from his sister's fair hands had not Mr Oriel been there, may be doubted. He, however, loudly asserted that he should not have done so, when she laid claim to great merit for rising in his behalf.

Mr Oriel had been specially instigated by Lady Arabella to use the opportunity of their joint journey, for pointing out to Frank the iniquity as well as madness of the course he was pursuing; and he had promised to obey her ladyship's behests. But Mr Oriel was perhaps not an enterprising man, and was certainly not a presumptuous one. He did intend to do as he was bid; but when he began, with the object of leading up to the subject of Frank's engagement, he always softened down into some much easier enthusiasm in the matter of his own engagement with Beatrice. He had not that perspicuous, but not over-sensitive strength of mind which had enabled Harry Baker to express his opinion out at once; and boldly as he did it, yet to do so without offence.

Four times before the train arrived in London, he made some little attempt; but four times he failed. As the subject was matrimony, it was his easiest course to begin about himself; but he never could get any further.

1. No
2. London
3. No
4. no
5. yes
6. himself
7. Beatrice
8. Harry Baker
9. no
10. train

Numbered questions:
1. Is this story going to be about a doctor's office?
2. What city?
3. Was Mr Oriel an enterprising man?
4. What about a presumptuous one?
5. Did he intend to talk about the subject of matrimony?
6. What did he talk about instead each time, instead?
7. Who was he engaged to?
8. Who was able to express their opinion at once, though?
9. Was anyone offended when Harry did it?
10. What are Mr Oriel and Frank riding together?

input: Make use of the article to answer the questions. Los Angeles (CNN) -- MIchael Jackson and Dr. Conrad Murray tried to recruit an anesthesiologist to join them on his comeback tour, according to testimony in the AEG Live wrongful death trial.

Murray arranged the meeting in March 2009 in which Jackson asked Dr. David Adams to travel with him to London, Adams testified.

Adams said that after he offered to take the job for $100,000 a month guaranteed for three years, Murray stopped communicating with him.

"I texted basically, you know, 'what's going on, I'm on board," Adams said. "And no response."

Just weeks later Murray accepted an offer from an AEG Live executive to be Jackson's personal physician on his "This Is It" tour for $150,000 a month.

Murray told investigators he began infusing Jackson with the surgical anesthetic propofol to treat his insomnia in April, a treatment that eventually killed the pop icon.

Debbie Rowe: Paris Jackson 'has no life' since father's death

Jurors in the trial of Jackson's last concert promoter viewed the video depositions of Adams and two other witnesses Wednesday ahead of a six-day break in testimony.

Jackson's mother and children are suing AEG Live, contending the company's executives negligently hired, retained or supervised Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Jackson's propofol overdose death.

AEG Live's lawyers argue it was Jackson -- not its executives -- who chose and controlled Murray and that they had no way of knowing about the dangerous treatments he was giving the singer in the privacy of his bedroom. 1. Who tried to recruit an anesthesiologist ?
2. To do what?
3. Who set up the meeting?
4. Who did he meet with?
5. Did he agree to the job?
6. What did Murray accept from AEG?
7. For how much?
8. What was he giving Jackson for treatment?
9. What was it suppose to be for?
10. Who is suing AEG Live?
11. For what?
12. What was Murray being charged with?
13. Was it an overdose?
14. Where was Jackson receiving this drug at?
15. Who stated it was not the executives fault?
16. How does Jackson's daughter feel?
17. Who looked at the statements depositions in court?
numbered_answers: 1. MIchael Jackson and Dr. Conrad Murray
2. join them on his comeback tour
3. Murray
4. Dr. David Adams
5. yes
6. an offer to be Jackson's personal physician on the tour
7. $150,000 a month
8. propofol
9. his insomnia
10. Jackson's mother and children
11. wrongful death
12. involuntary manslaughter
13. yes
14. in his bedroom
15. AEG Live's lawyers
16. like she has no life
17. Jurors

During the years after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, structural engineers have been trying hard to solve a question that would otherwise have been completely unthinkable: Can building be designed to stand catastrophic blasts by terrorists?

Soon after the terrorist attacks on the twin towers, structural engineers from the University at Buffalo and the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER) traveled to ground zero as part of a project funded by the National Science Foundation. They spent two days beginning the task of formulating ideas about how to design such structures and to search for clues on how to do so in buildings that were damaged, but still are standing.

"Our objective in visiting ground zero was to go and look at the buildings surrounding the World Trade Center, those buildings that are still standing, but that sustained damage," said M. Bruneau, Ph.D. "Our immediate hope is that we can develop a better understanding as to why those buildings remain standing, while our long-term goal is to see whether earthquake engineering technologies can be married to existing technologies to achieve enhanced performance of buildings in the event of terrorist attacks," he added.

Photographs taken by the investigators demonstrate the monumental damage to the World Trade Center towers and buildings nearby. One building a block away from the towers remains standing, but was badly damaged. "This building is many meters away from the World Trade Center and yet we see a column there that used to be part of that building," explained A. Whittaker, Ph.D. "The column became a missile that shot across the road, through the window and through the floor."

The visit to the area also brought some surprises, according to the engineers. For example, the floor framing system in one of the buildings was quite strong , allowing floors that were pierced by tons of falling debris to survive. "Good framing systems may provide a simple, but reliable strategy for blast resistance," he added. Other strategies may include providing alternate paths for gravity loads in the event that a load-bearing column fails. "We also need a better understanding of the mechanism of collapse," said A. Whittaker. "We need to find out what causes a building to collapse and how you can predict it."

A. Reinhorn, Ph.D. noted that "earthquake shaking has led to the collapse of buildings in the past. Solutions developed for earthquake-resistant design may apply to blast engineering and terrorist-resistant design. Part of our mission now is to transfer these solutions and to develop new ones where none exist at present." What are the answers to this following set of questions: 1. What are engineers trying to solve?
2. What question is that?
3. Who funded the project?
4. Where did they travel to?
5. Where is ground zero?
6. Does M. Bruneau have a degree?
Answer:
1. to solve a question that would otherwise have been completely unthinkable:
2. Can building be designed to stand catastrophic blasts by terrorists?
3. structural engineers from the University at Buffalo and the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER)
4. traveled to ground zero
5. World Trade Center
6. Ph.D