Question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: As many of you will have seen, unfortunately the Ubuntu Edge campaign did not reach our goal of $32million. The final total reached was $12,812,776. I am hugely proud and thankful to everyone who pledged, supported the campaign, wrote about it, and helped to spread the word. Some have described us not meeting the goal as a "failure". I don't see it that way. Let's be honest: $32million was always an incredibly ambitious target. We would have liked to have done it for less money, but building a F1 superphone doesn't come cheap (and remember that the $32million didn't include any costs for software engineering and project managementCanonical were providing that for free). It was an ambitious target, but disrupting an industry is ambitious in itself, and we gave the crowd-funding campaign our best shot. The story does not end here though. I am not surprised that we didn't hit this ambitious $32million target, but I am surprised at what we did achieve. We broke all the crowd-funding records, garnered media attention across CNBC, Engadget, The Independent, TechCrunch, the BBC, T3, Stuff, The Verge, The Guardian, Wired, pandodaily, Fast Company, Forbes, The Telegraph and more. Every single person who put their support into the Ubuntu Edge campaign should be proud of their achievements and we are all thankful for your tremendous and inspiring support. One thing to be critically clear about is that the Ubuntu convergence story does not end here. We are as voraciously excited and committed to bringing this Free Software convergence story to the world as ever before; our work with OEMs, Carriers, and ISVs continues apace. We have fantastic work going on across all fronts, and we are on track to have a 1.0 release of the Ubuntu Phone platform in October. Question: Who was proud of those who pledged to the Ubuntu Edge campaign? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- the author's wife
- the author
- the author's daughter
- not enough information
Answer: the author

Question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: What do apples, pears and oranges all have in common? If you answered that they are all fruits you are absolutely correct. If you answered that they are all good for your health you are spot on again. Fruits used to be a staple in many diets, however in amongst all of the low carb and anti sugar chaos, many people are now avoiding them. In a rush to rid the diet of 'toxic sugar', fruit has fallen on the wayside. However, many studies have shown that fruit is not linked to any adverse health effects, quite the opposite in fact. Most recently researchers in Sweden discovered that eating a diet high in fruits could reduce the risk of an often lethal form of aortic aneurysm. The study collected data from over 80,000 people over a 13 year period and found that people eating at least two whole fruits per day, reduced the risk of developing an abdominal aortic aneurysm by almost a third. The main fruits that were eaten were apples, pears, bananas, oranges and other citrus fruits. The fruits' high antioxidant levels may offer protection by reducing oxidative stress and inflammation. Eating whole fruits can also reduced the risk of developing diabetes. Earlier this year a study published in the British Medical Journal revealed that certain whole fruits in particular blueberries, grapes, apples and pears could lower the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. The study found that over an 18-year period, 6.5% of the 187,382 participants developed diabetes, but those consuming at least two serves of fruit per week reduced their risk by up to 23%. In the same study those who consumed two or more serves of fruit juice per day increased their risk of developing diabetes by as much as 21%. As Tim wrote in a previous blog post, this is reason why you should be eating your fruit, not drinking it Question: Why did people start to avoid fruit? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- They wanted to do research in Sweden.
- They wanted to get rid of toxic sugar in their diet.
- They wanted to develop an abdominal aortic aneurysm.
Answer: They wanted to get rid of toxic sugar in their diet.

Question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Renegade Republicans who are trying to force a vote on immigration reform in the House of Representatives survived an attempt by leaders of their party to block their efforts. The renegades, a group of moderate Republicans, are five signatures short of the 25 needed to bypass leadership and force floor votes on several immigration proposals through a rare procedural tactic known as a discharge petition. Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, has described the discharge petition as "futile" because it lacks any guarantee that a bill would become law in the face of a threatened presidential veto. But it was House conservatives who defeated the $867 million farm bill Friday when their own move to get an immigration bill to the House floor failed. The House Freedom Caucus a conservative voting bloc in the U.S. House had offered to vote for the farm bill in exchange for a promise that one immigration bill would be brought up for a vote. The hope was that the offer would be enough to keep some Republican House members from signing the discharge petition. The immigration bill, known as the Goodlatte Bill, is a conservative approach to immigration that would provide legal status to undocumented young people brought to the U.S. as children in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, but only in addition to changes in the U.S. legal immigration system. The Goodlatte Bill is opposed by many moderate Republicans. For them, the deal offered an opportunity to negotiate on legislation that might win the support of President Donald Trump and resolve the status of DACA recipients. The deal fell through, and the farm bill failed to pass by a 193-213 vote Friday. "It's not a fatal blow it's just a reorganize," House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows told reporters shortly after the vote, "At this point, we really need to deal with immigration in an effective way." Meadows said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy negotiated in good faith on the immigration issue, but would not elaborate on why a deal was elusive. Question: What is probably true about the immigration bill? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- it is liberal
- it is conservative
- it is libetarian
Answer:
it is conservative