I don't know how this rates as "shocking", I guess it might depend on the culture in which you live, but, it is at the least "repulsive" or disgusting. There was a huge corporation in which I had a contract with. I was called in, to help them uncover what they considered "a very serious series of incidents". Their own "in house" attempts were fruitless. It turned out, they had an over-sized engineering department, and that it had been announced that this would be scaled back due to completion of contracts. Someone though, within the engineering department, was sabotaging the continued work, slowing the completion. I was to go undercover, posing as a visiting engineer from a distant plant, and find out who the perpetrator/s were, as they wished to file legal action. So, this is at the corporate headquarters, in the late 1980's. These people were making 6 figure incomes easily. That being said, you kind of expect a bit more of a dignified behavior here than you would with a construction laborer or dishwasher. I completed my job in four days, giving them the evidence and name of the lone individual respsonsible for the sabotage. What exactly was he doing? He carried rubber gloves in his back pocket, and he would periodically use the restroom, and remove his feces from the toilet and smear it all over the walls, covering as much surface as he could. He would also visit restrooms in different departments and do the same. This would cause the unionized individuals, who only had that restroom to use in their area, to walk off their work stations. Seriously, a butt-hurt guy fearing a layoff, so he decided to smear his shit all over the place before it even happened. He readily confessed when confronted by HR, further destroying his work record/career. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: Who completed the job in 4 days? Options: - the police officer - not enough information - the investigator - the engineer
the investigator

(Question)
My best story is about Santa Claus. A mall Santa had a heart attack at work and was rushed to the Emergency Room in full cardiac arrest. Let me explain that a person playing Santa is generally a certain age (white beard) and body type (round) that is predisposed to cardiac disease. We did everything we could but ultimately our efforts were futile. The mall Santa rode his sleigh into the great beyond. A mother, there to visit another patient, was insistent that her 78 year old son be allowed back to visit his grandmother. We had a strict 12 year old age limit visitation policy. I was called to speak with her. "Why do you have such a stupid Draconian policy?" She insisted. "The Emergency Room is no place for a child ma'am. Besides, the germs and infections he may be exposed to, there are things he may see or hear that a child would have a hard time processing," I explained. "Like what?" She argued. "Well, there are people in pain moaning," I answered. "And drunks cursing at the staff. It's a tough place." "He's fine," she insisted. "I think I know how to parent. I don't need you to worry about what my son is able to handle." I caved in and allowed her back. As we passed the room with the dead Santa, a tech exited and opened the curtain. Her child looked in and saw Santa's lifeless body, ET tube sticking out of his throat, boots still on but costume cut to shreds and strewn across the room. The child lost it! "Mom, Santa Claus is Dead!" He cried. "I'm not going to get anything for Christmas." "Why would someone open the curtain?" The mother demanded. "I warned you," I said. "That's why we have a 12 years and above visitation policy." She was not happy. Come to find out the child had his picture made with that very Santa a few days prior. Very ironic. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: What is probably true about the tech who opened the curtain? Options: - The tech did not expect a young child to be walking by. - The tech opened the curtain on purpose to upset the child. - not enough information - The tech wanted the mother to understand the reasons for the visitation policy.
(Answer)
The tech did not expect a young child to be walking by.

Two signatures. That's all that's needed to force a wide-ranging House debate and votes on border security and the immigration status of 700,000 undocumented young people brought to the U.S. as children. Since moderate Republicans opposed House leadership two weeks ago with a rare discharge petition to force a so-called "queen of the hill" debate (House rule based on the most votes) on immigration, the measure has steadily accumulated support within their own party. The petition needs 218 signatures to start that debate and with the assumption that all 193 House Democrats will sign on Republicans need just two more signatures. But that effort now goes on hold as Congress leaves town for an 11-day holiday recess, giving all sides breathing room to figure out what comes next. Many of the 23 Republican signers of the petition face tough re-election races in their districts this November. The debate over Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients has challenged lawmakers since last September, when U.S. President Donald Trump ended the program, calling on Congress to find a permanent legislative solution. Lawmakers will return to Washington facing an immediate deadline. Representative Jeff Denham, a California Republican who is one of the leaders of the petition effort, told reporters that June 7 would be the absolute last moment to allow the petition to mature before lawmakers run up against a seven-week summer recess. Denham said talks with House leadership and the House Freedom Caucus, a conservative voting bloc seeking significant security concessions in return for a citizenship path for DACA recipients, have been productive. "We've had an agreement in principle," Denham said of a deal that would provide a 12-year path to citizenship for DACA recipients, known colloquially as Dreamers. "Now it's trying to put that information on paper. So, assuming we can continue to move forward, that is something we would bring to our conference on the 7th when we have our two-hour immigration meeting,... According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: When did moderate republicans oppose House leadership? Options: - After facing tough re-election races in their districts - After lawmakers returned to Washington - Before Congress left town for an 11-day holiday recess - not enough information
Before Congress left town for an 11-day holiday recess