There was a boy named Chan who loved his parents, though they did not love him back; he was not even given a first name. He had been born in the wrong month, during the wrong phase of the moon, his parents told him, and had brought them nothing but bad luck. The promotion at the factory promised to his father was taken away at the last moment. The garden his mother worked in nearly every day never produced anything more than the most meager of weeds since Chan's birth. It was often sunny in the little Chinese village, but there was an almost constant gloom over their house, as if a rogue cloud were blocking the sun only over their property. And his parents, of course, blamed Chan for everything. He was small for his age, and usually quiet. He liked to listen to people instead of talking, filling himself with stories. He was a good boy and always did as he was told, and could see the good in his parents, even if others couldn't. Every so often, his mother would allow him a sweet, or his father would bring home an origami folding kit. They didn't like to show it to others, but his parents could be kind. Chan was patient and knew they would love him eventually. He was digging one day between the fence and the west side of the house for grubs to feed to his pet chameleon, Rainbow. It was a warm July day not long after his tenth birthday. He often went there because it was cool and damp from the shade of the trees, and the worms seemed to like it there. He never took more than he needed, then he thanked the grubs for sacrificing their lives so that Rainbow could remain living and being his pet. Chan was very kind-hearted when it came to grubs. Question: How did Chan feel about grubs? Options: A. kind-hearted B. not enough information C. disgusted D. cold-hearted === The correct answer is
A

With the growth of the Internet and the ease of publishing content, more and more creative minds are coming online to share videos, music, software, products, services, opinions, and more. While the technology has empowered a generation to build new audiences and share interesting things, an unfortunate side-effect has been a culture in which some consumers of this content have provided feedback in a form that is personalized, mean-spirited, disrespectful, and in some cases, malicious. We have all seen itthe trolls, the haters, the comment boxes filled with venom and vitriol, typically pointed at people just trying to do good and interesting things. Unfortunately, this conduct can be jarring for many people, with some going as far to give up sharing their creative endeavours so as not to deal with the "wrath of the Internet". As some of you will know, this has been bothering me for a while now. While there is no silver bullet for solving these issues, one thing I have learned over the years is how to put negative, anti-social, and non-constructive comments and feedback into perspective. To help others with this I have written a free book called Dealing With Disrespect. Dealing With Disrespect is a short, simple to read, free book that provides a straight-forward guide for handling this kind of challenging feedback, picking out the legitimate criticism to learn from, and how to not just ignore the haters, but how to manage them. The book helps put all communication, whether on or offline, into perspective and helps you to become a better communicator yourself. My goal with the book is that when someone reads something anti-social that demotivates them, a friend can recommend 'Dealing With Disrespect' as something that can help put things in perspective. Question: Why do the trolls comment with venom and vitriol? Options: A. Because they are miserable B. not enough information C. Because they hate themselves D. Because they are bad people === The correct answer is
B

Q: While I was in training, my class was 2 months out from graduation. We were in class, reviewing skills such as antenna theory, radios and map reading. Our instructor walks in and pulls a candidate, we'll leave nameless, aside. He walks him out of the classroom. I never really thought anything of it as instructors would often pull guys aside for reviews, specific instructions or taskings. I don't know how much time passed but the candidate walked back in. He gathered his things and left the room. Guys asked if everything was cool but he didn't say a word. The instructor came in and sat on the desk at the front of the room. We asked if everything was alright, and he told us that the day prior, the The candidate's wife had gone into labor however there were complications with the baby but the complications were unknown. He was reporting to the commander to let him know whether he wanted to stay in training or leave because the military does not consider a spouse's pregnancy to be an emergency even though the complication should be. If he were to leave he would have to drop from the TACP pipeline with a possibility of either starting it over from the beginning of quitting all together. The instructor shook his head and I could honestly see it was a difficult task for him to tell the candidate. It's rare to see an instructor be emotional but it was something that brought reality into the room for us. The candidate was given 24 hours to call the hospital, talk to his wife, learn more of the situation and make a decision. He ended up staying in the pipeline and graduated. His child was born with minor complications but is healthy to this day. It may not be an exact teacher to a student scenario, but it hits pretty damn close to those of us who went through military training. Question: The author probably believes that: Options: A. not enough information B. The instructor did not care. C. The instructor is nice human being. D. The instructor is indifferent. === The correct answer is
A: C

(Q).
What are the worst examples of false advertising you've seen? Did you fall prey to their claims? Rather that vouch for myself - my story is trite, and not particularly interesting - I'll relay the tale one of my nurses shared with me when I was laid up in the hospital for a few weeks. Call her R. R was from an Eastern European country. We chit-chatted a lot, while she was taking my blood pressure readings and stuff. Lots of fun stories! But she relayed to me one of her first U.S. memories: She wanted to lose weight. She was impressed by some things the U.S. had to offer - "you have actual nutritional information on everything!" - and thus figured everything she encountered was on the level. And she found a "miracle cure" company who was along those lines! "These are AWESOME miracle shoe inserts! Wear them, and the pounds will melt away!" She saved her pennies and dimes; she sprung for the inserts. She received them... and they were shoe inserts; that much was true. But then there was their documentation: "using these insoles, combined with a 1200 calorie-per-day diet...." Like a 1200-calorie diet won't likely involve weight-loss, no matter what else you did, shoe inserts aside. The inserts did nothing, obviously. It was a sham. At which point she knew she was snookered, but really had no recourse. She wasn't explicit about it, but I got the feeling that it was a leading factor towards her chosen profession. "I might not have been the most sage medical person ever, but I'm gonna rectify that, and if ever I hear someone falling for that sort of gambit again, I'll be there to nip those sentiments in the bud with my own anecdotes." Which is awesome. I still feel for her. I wish I had contact information, so I could touch base, and express those thoughts personally. But that's the most personally resonant version of false advertising affecting someone that I've seen. Question: What did the shoe inserts claim they would do? Options: A. Rejuvenate tired feet. B. Relieve back pain. C. Help the wearer lose weight. D. not enough information === The correct answer is
(A).
C