Job offer many years ago. I had two, one for staff accountant and the other was as accounting manager for a holistic health clinic. The clinic job paid about 40% more and came with a "manager" title. I believed in myself and all that, but who offers someone just out of school with only 2 years of internship and no specialty in field manager level? That kept bugging me. Something just wasn't right. Acting on instinct, I took the other job. Good thing! A few months later, I read that the owner of the clinic (an MD) and his two partners (his wife and the CFO) had all been indicted for numerous counts of fraud. They were cheating the state, they were cheating the church they were affiliated with, they were cheating Medicare and private insurance companies. The IRS was after them it was supposed to be not-for-profit but it turns out they were living large. Not only that, but they hadn't been sending in w/h tax for non-church member paid employees. Then there was the allegation that they were abusing mentally handicapped workers who were related to church members. The church itself tried to distance themselves, but three elders were also on the clinic's Board of Directors. It was nasty and the entire management team ended up with at least some jail time. There was no way anyone who had any access to the records (medical or financial) could have claimed innocence. My job would have included filing false budget and financial statements with the Board, IRS and other agencies. I would have also probably known that they were withholding but not remitting tax from employee checks. Fact is, the poor kid who took the job got 2 years, so I found out. Those in on the medical fraud got even worse and the three principals all got 2-digit sentences. Question: Where did the narrator decide to work for after receiving two job offers? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- At the IRS as fraud investigator.
- At an organization as a staff accountant.
- At a holistic health clinic as an accounting manager.
- not enough information

Answer: At an organization as a staff accountant.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- Justin Trudeau
- Donald Trump
- Emmanuel Macron
- not enough information
Q: QUEBEC CITY, CANADA On the eve of the G-7 summit in Canada, the U.S. president lashed out at host Justin Trudeau and the White House announced Donald Trump would skip some of the sessions. In two tweets Thursday evening, Trump accused the Canadian prime minister, as well as French President Emmanuel Macron, of "charging the U.S. massive tariffs" and creating "non-monetary barriers." Trump also said Trudeau was being "indignant" about the cross-border trade relationship. Later Thursday night, Trump took to Twitter again to urge the European Union and Canada to "Take down your tariffs & barriers or we will more than match you!" Trump's tweets came after Macron threatened to exclude the United States from the G-7 final statement to be issued in the mountainous tourism destination of Charlevoix. In his own tweets in French and English, Macron stated that while Trump "may not mind being isolated" the other six leaders meeting in Canada would also not mind signing an agreement among themselves. "American jobs are on the line because of his actions and because of his administration," Trudeau said at a joint news conference with Macron earlier in the day in Ottawa. "When we can underscore this, and we see that there's a lot of pressure within the U.S., perhaps he will revise his position." "A trade war doesn't spare anyone," Macron said. "It will start to hurt American workers. The cost of raw materials will rise and industry will become less competitive." After the contentious salvos on social media and the Trudeau-Macron news conference, the White House announced Trump would depart the summit at 10:30 a.m. Saturday, following the session on women's empowerment. "The president will travel directly to Singapore from Canada in anticipation of his upcoming meeting with North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un Tuesday. G-7 sherpa and deputy assistant to the president for international economic affairs Everett Eissenstat will represent the United States for the remaining G-7 sessions," White House Press Secretary SarahSanders... Question: Who was the leader of France === The answer to the above question is
Answer: Emmanuel Macron

input with options: U.S. lawmakers grilled Trump administration officials Tuesday about the war in Afghanistan, saying the new White House strategy was inconsistent and was not producing results. The comments made at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing reflected growing frustration in Congress about the U.S.-led war, which is entering its 17th year. As recently as November, General John Nicholson, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, acknowledged that the conflict remained a stalemate. Since then, a wave of high-profile insurgent attacks have rocked the capital, Kabul. The Taliban now controls or contests almost half the country, according to latest U.S. estimates. Despite the setbacks, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan, who is helping oversee the new White House strategy, gave a positive assessment of the conflict. "The president's South Asia strategy is showing some signs of progress," Sullivan said. "On the battlefield, we are seeing the Taliban's momentum begin to slow." But lawmakers from both parties expressed skepticism. "Something is clearly not working," said Senator Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat and longtime Afghan war critic. "By any standard, the current security situation is grim." Some lawmakers took aim at President Donald Trump, who last week said he didn't want to talk with the Taliban a statement that seemingly contradicted his own strategy. After Sullivan and a top Pentagon official told the lawmakers that the U.S. was in fact still open to negotiations with the Taliban, lawmakers pressed for more details. "You can see that the world and those involved in the peace process may be pretty confused about what the U.S. position is. What is it?" asked Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat. Sullivan said he thought Trump was expressing a reaction to last month's terrorist attacks, and was pointing out that "significant elements of the Taliban are not prepared to negotiate." "And it may take a long time before they are willing to negotiate," he added. But many in the Senate appear... Question: Why does Sullivan think the President is having successes in South Asia? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- the President says so
- the Taliban's momentum is slowing
- not enough information
- the Taliban is speeding up momentum
output:
the Taliban's momentum is slowing