Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: Years back, following a transition inside a large company where many people got fired and moved around, the decision was made to give the remaining people more work. Now, let me pause here, when I say, "more work" did not mean more of the existing work they already did. "More work" did not mean work of what they already knew, or signed up for when they were hired. More work meant incorporating a completely different role. For me, I'm a programmer. And "management" decided they wanted programmers to also do BA work. Now, mind you, nowhere on my employment contract does it state I'd have to take a BA role. And nowhere on my employment contract did it state taking a BA role would also require me doing all of my programming work. So, after being pushed a few times to attend BA meetings, I got fed up. So I pulled my manager into a meeting and explained this to him. I said, you have two choices: I do two roles, BA and programmer, and I get a new salary to account for the role. When he asked how much, I said, take my salary and multiply by 1.6. Option 2, I go back to programming, and you never pull me into a meeting again on BA work. It's not what you hired me for, and it's not what you pay me for. When my boss replied, "Our company is not in the position to pay for two roles", I told him, then it sounds like Option 2. And by the way, I don't ever want to have this discussion again. If you want Superman performance, you cannot pay Clark Kent wages. 1 year passed and I was never bothered again about BA roles. Takeaways: Middle managers are one step above one-celled organisms. They can, and will try to get you to do non-role work, with no intention of ever paying you more. They key is to cut it off at the pass. Question: What sort of person is narrator likely to be? Options: A. Afraid B. Shy C. not enough information D. Assertive
D

Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: I lost sight in one eye when in college, I had two preschool children at the time. I was walking through the house one morning and suddenly I could see NOTHING out of one eye. When I told my husband,who was right there when it happened, he assumed my eye was just blurry or something had gotten in the eye. He took me to the ophthalmologist who verified that I could not see out of the eye. Then we subsequently got the worse news that it was a neurological condition with a long name I do not remember that there was nothing he could do about. He said that I would either get my sight back or I you and all we could do was wait and see if it came back. This was right before finals that semester but he told me I absolutely could not be studying or using my good eye for reading or basically anything that would strain it or I could end up losing sight in that eye also. Needless to say, as a mom of two children ages 2 1/2 and 6 months,I could not afford to lose ALL of my sight! So, I had to wait. I could not drive like that either which made matters worse. Both my husband and I were in school fulltime (until then), fortunately it was the end of the semester, unfortunately it was BEFORE finals. My sight did come back but not for about 5 months. When it first started to come back I still couldn't drive because although I could see I did not have my peripheral vision, that did not fully come back for quite a while. I cannot imagine it a person who goes totally blind goes through, I just know for me it was not an easy to to go through. Question: After the author got her vision back she probably: Options: A. not enough information B. lost her vision in that eye again C. did lose her vision again D. had more vision problems in the future
C

Q: Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: Relatives of a dying lady I was caring for kicking and screaming not to give their Mum pain relief because they were so terrified / knew it would probably be the thing to end her life. She had a horrible aggressive cancer that ravaged her whole body and needed very regular doses of strong pain relief which - as she had a terminal illness and was receiving end of life care - did not have an upper limit so to speak. She had pain relief as and when needed to make her comfortable and that often results in people ultimately overdosing. Mum had Alzheimer's and was howling and writhing in agony so we were giving her pain relief but daughters knew it would probably result in her death - which they were right about possibly happening and in their grief and panic, started trying to prevent us from doing anything. Didn't want us getting near her at all and we had to go through an awful scenario of trying to explain what we had to do for Mum and why and when they still wouldn't have it or allow us near, we had to do what nobody wants and go against their wishes by administering the pain relief anyway. One daughter screamed the place down, threatened to have me arrested and struck off / said she would go to the papers and tell them about how we killed her Mum and in the end she had to be removed from the bedroom. Her Mum was given the pain relief, immediately relaxed and fell asleep then died peacefully in her sleep about 15 mins later. The saddest thing is her daughter wasn't able to be there and see her Mum dropping off so peacefully and her last memory will forever be of her screaming and thrashing about as she (daughter) was physically removed from the room. Tragic. Question: Who had the cancer? Options: A. The mum B. the daughter C. the dad D. not enough information
A: A

*Question*
Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: It's axiomatic that all cultures reserve a special place for food in their daily and social lives. For something as simple as a cuppa joe, we schedule and juggle our time to meet at predetermined locations to share conversation and libation. Meals require even more effort and the social ramifications increase. One is expected to show up on time, sometimes dress to certain standards and bring one or many bottles of wine as a thoughtful gift to the hosts. And of course, the food is just an excuse to get together with friends to enjoy a meal, share stories, to discuss or seduce, to seal an agreement or act as a prelude to a severance of relations (frequently unintentionally). I was first introduced to dining for pleasure as opposed to sustenance while at the University of New Brunswick. I lived in Bridges House, one of the men's residences. The young, eager, bright-eyed students in each residence were kept more or less in check by a Don. Each residence had its share of maniacs and troublemakers who were at university to get some form of education, alcohol poisoning or a social disease; sometimes all three. The Don's job was to act as a mentor and prison warden. Imagine a building housing up to 100 young adult men. It doesn't take much to start a riot. In our case, the Don was Locutus. When we met him, he must have been in his forties but looked to us adolescents to be older than Father Time. He was immediately dubbed 'Grandpa Munster'. With the tender sensitivity of males of our age, we didn't bother to hide this from him and he took it in good humour. In point of fact, Locutus was a great Don; firm when he needed to be and understanding and helpful as appropriate. You crossed this guy at your peril, but he was generally pretty tolerant. Question: Was Locutus a pushover? Options: A. Yes, the residences did not respect him at all. B. not enough information C. Yes, he gave in to all the residences demands. D. No, he was firm when he needed to be.
**Answer**
D