Television drama's whole point is to bring you through an often slow start, followed by a complex development to a point where there are two or three potential denouements before, "Cut!", it is the end of the episode and you will have to await the "right answer" in the following week's show. This post came to me at 10pm last night, on Day 16 of this challenge, after a day of holidaying in London and with my head (and feet) too weary to put finger to touchscreen. Mrs Mc and I had just watched another live instalment of Broadchurch, murder mystery extraordinaire, particularly since in the second series there is no actual fresh murder to investigate. The verdict is about to be given on the accused killer from Series 1 when the inevitable happens... Cue title music. This moment has even gained a moniker in British homes, based on the theme tune to the real masters of the four-times-a-week cliffhanger, London-based soap opera Eastenders. It's call a "ba...ba...ba...ba, ba, ba-ba-ba-ba" (YouTube will provide overseas readers with auditory explanation). Eastenders is such a master of writing in the perfect pace that every 28 minute episode ends with a tantalising screen freeze on the latest shocked face / smirking baddy / confused victim. For really big stories the cliffhanger can last significantly longer. This week, to celebrate the show's 30 year birthday, we will finally find out the answer to a question unanswered for the past 14 months: "Who killed Lucy Beale?" Now, most classrooms do not involve murder, incest, dodgy deals and danger, but "good teaching" encourages a type of pacing that totally ignores the ingredients that have millions in the edges of their seats every day: the good old cliffhanger. In fact, we see teachers giving away the punchline at the beginning: "Today we are learning this:..." Question: Who is Mrs Mc? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Author's Grandmother
- Author's Mother
- Author's Aunt

Answer: not enough information

Problem: OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Jason is distraught over Carly and runs into the forest
- Jason tries to communicate with the aliens
- Jason is upset that carly is gone
Q: Jason Munt said him and Carly Furnish got beamed up by a bunch of aliens just after he'd boldly gone with her in the car park woods. It was the boldly going bit people thought was bullshit. Carly Furnish was a good God-loving girl. Trouble was, she'd gone missing. And Jason Munt had a weird crescent-shaped branding in his back, and was sticking to his story. Jason got hauled in by the cops and told he was in a whole heap of trouble. He reported blinding lights and a feeling like floating. He described being strapped to a table by little green men. A cop slapped the table and shouted, 'there's a frigging girl out there.' Jason said he knew how it sounded - the little green men, the whole thing - but it's true: they were little and green, just like out of the comic books. He volunteered tests for drink and drugs. He came back negative on both counts. They left him to stew. He said the last he saw of Carly was her being sucked up in some kind of light ray. He said, 'she seemed asleep - all peaceful, like.' Jason could not explain why he'd been beamed back down to earth, yet they'd seemingly taken Carly all the way off home with them to the Planet Zog. There were plenty of people willing to reckon it proved aliens had mighty good taste, but it wasn't the time nor the place to say it out loud. The cops released Jason after two days of questions. He stuck to his story throughout. The desk sergeant said, 'mark my words, there's a lot of hate out there.' Jason headed straight home. He lived in one of the straggle of council houses leading up to the tip. Carly Furnish and her folks lived two doors down. Supposedly they were distant relatives, but that's what everyone said about folks on that street. Question: After the end of the story: === The answer to the above question is
Answer: Jason is distraught over Carly and runs into the forest

input with options: SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA The conservative leader of South Korea's main opposition party on Thursday spoke out against the upcoming U.S.North Korea summit. He also voiced concern that political considerations are driving U.S. President Donald Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in to compromise joint security for more false denuclearization promises from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. "I am rather pessimistic about whether this negotiation will work out well or not. The only means for North Korea to maintain its regime is its nuclear program. The moment that North Korea gives up its nuclear program, and the moment it opens up to reform, the Kim Jong Un regime will collapse," said Hong Joon-pyo, the chairman of the Liberty Korea Party. On June 12, Trump and Kim will meet in Singapore to try to reach an agreement to end the North's threatening nuclear weapons program in exchange for economic incentives and security guarantees that could include a formal peace treaty to replace the armistice that has been enforced since the end of the Korean War in 1953. Many South Korean conservatives had voiced strong support for Trump's "maximum pressure" polices to force Pyongyang to unilaterally give up its nuclear weapons through tough international sanctions in place that ban 90 percent of the country's trade, and the threat of military action. But they have been troubled by recent statements coming from the Trump administration indicating the United States may be willing to soften its demands for the complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement (CVID) of the North's nuclear program before offering any sanctions relief. Hong is worried that Trump may seek a deal that would quickly end the North's intercontinental ballistic missile program that directly threatens the U.S., and leave the regional nuclear threat to be resolved later. Trump seems overly intent to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough, Hong said, to shift the media focus away from the ongoing special prosecutor investigation he is facing over Russia's... Question: What is probably true about the negotiations between U.S. and North Korea? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- they probably will be limited
- not enough information
- they probably will work out completely
- they probably will not work out at all
output:
they probably will be limited