TL:DR: I un-professionally get mad at a customer and verbally slam the door on her way out. I was working a shift at a chain cafe one afternoon in England, it was during the lunch rush, so we had a back up of customers lined up to the exit. See the problem with the chain is that all of our customers mostly range from midlife crisis to half-a-foot in the grave, so once a customer lines up, they don't leave and they extend the queue. Plus this is a chain cafe so I've got a manager who's constantly on my back to speed up because someone is on her back to drive numbers up: this results in the line putting stress on my air-hostess smile, but they don't call it work for nothing. Now I'm not the only one stressed, a customer lines up during lunch, they're hungry and wish that Euclidean laws would suspend themselves so that they did not have to deal with the fact that I can't deal with a customer at the speed of light. Well one eldritch horror declares that my coffee took too long and does her rendition of the 1933 Hitler speech to the rest of the customers with an addendum that she will take her business elsewhere. Now my chain are pretty big in England, so if a customer wants to slap me around with a 'customer is always right' the script dictates that I do everything in my power to make sure they come back, and Cthulu knows this, well: I'm stressed, I don't like her face and she's given me an opportunity for me to give her the polite 'fuck off'. All I say is 'Good' and move on to the next customer. Hitler-lite phones my corporation to voice a complaint, so a suit comes out and asks the team who did it, I fess up so I can save the time and not have a reason to hate one of my co-workers. I get a lecture and a warning, the end. Question: The customer phoned the cafe's corporate offices: Options: - after the incident - before the incident - during the incident - not enough information === The correct answer is
after the incident

(Question)
As the United States consults with allies about a possible military response to a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria, Russia said Wednesday that all parties involved should refrain from actions that could destabilize the fragile situation in the region. Russia is an ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and has fought in support of his government in the conflict since 2015. The United States has backed rebel groups in Syria and blames Assad's forces for the attack in eastern Ghouta on Saturday that killed at least 40 people. Both Syria and Russia have denied the allegations. U.S. President Donald Trump has warned those responsible will pay a "big price," and he has spoken repeatedly with his British and French counterparts about a possible response to the attack. "We are looking for a coordinated response, whatever that response might be," State Department spokesman Heather Nauert said Tuesday. French President Emmanuel Macron said a decision would be made "in the coming days," and that any airstrikes would target the Syrian government's chemical facilities. Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop added her country's support Wednesday for any action that is "targeted, calibrated and proportionate." In addition to blaming Syria, Trump has further blamed Assad's backers in Iran and Russia for the eastern Ghouta attack. A global chemical weapons watchdog on Tuesday said it will send a team to investigate the incident. The World Health Organization said Wednesday that according to reports from its partners, 500 people who sought treatment Saturday showed signs and symptoms of toxic chemical exposure. The WHO expressed outrage at the suspected use of chemical weapons and demanded immediate access to the area to provide care. At the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday, Russia vetoed a U.S.-drafted plan that would have set up a commission to investigate and assign blame for the chemical weapons attack. The World Health Organization said Wednesday that according to reports from its partners, 500 people... Question: When did Russia discuss parties refraining from acting against Syria? Options: - while the US talks with allies about possible military action - before the US talks with Syria about action - After the US had strikes on Syria - not enough information === The correct answer is
(Answer)
while the US talks with allies about possible military action

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA The U.S. election calendar could be a key factor in determining the scope and timing of a potential deal to end the North Korean nuclear program. Planning is progressing for both the upcoming summit between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in at the end of April and the expected meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Kim in late May or early June. President Trump said Tuesday that there had been talks at "extremely high levels" between his administration and the North Korean government. Later it was reported that Mike Pompeo, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency and a secretary of state nominee, met recently with Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang. Trump also noted the talks have been marked by "a lot of goodwill" and that "there has been a major change in terms of North Korea's behavior," since Kim's Olympic outreach this year, in which he sent a large delegation to the Pyeongchang Winter games in South Korea, suspended nuclear and missile tests, and expressed a willingness to engage in denuclearization talks. The turn toward diplomacy has reduced, for now, the potential for conflict over the North's accelerated efforts last year to develop an operational nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach the U.S. mainland. The North Korean leader's decision to engage in denuclearization talks was likely motivated by both Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign, which increased sanctions and the threat of military action against the North, and by South Korean President Moon's reassuring outreach efforts to improve inter-Korean relations. Trump's motivation in pursuing a nuclear deal with North Korea, in addition to resolving a growing national security threat, could also have a political component. According to North Korea analysts at the Sejong Institute in South Korea, the Trump administration is likely calculating how achieving such an agreement could help boost the president's chances for re-election in 2020. "If I were Trump, I... Question: How long did Mike Pompeo's meeting with Kim Jong-Un last? Options: - not enough information - A couple hours - A few days - A few minutes === The correct answer is
A couple hours