Question: I was about 14 and lived near a large tract of undeveloped land where people would go and park to fool around. There was a dirt road through the tract, but further down, it crossed two huge concrete pipes. The dirt was washed out between them, and the deep gulch made it impossible to cross in a car. Sometimes, eight or ten of us would go looking for parked cars. If we found one or more, we would go move this incredibly heavy stump onto the road and lay a telephone pole across it. It took all of us and it was incredibly heavy. It was impossible to drive around it because of the ditches and there was no way two or three people could move it. We'd go back to the car and set off a big string of fire crackers or shake the cat and slap on it and run like crazy. We'd watch from the woods as they drove like heck and come to a screeching stop at our roadblock. The guy would get out and try to lift the pole. Never happen. Then the car would drive the other way. That wouldn't happen because of the pipes. We'd go home leaving them in there. This was before cell phones, and it was miles to a pay phone. We'd go back the next day and find the stump and pole moved. We thought it was real funny until one night we set it up and beat on the trunk of a car. A couple was inside, getting it on. We hadn't noticed a guy sitting on the hood with a bottle of booze and a pistol. As we ran, he was shooting and we could hear bullets going through the underbrush. No one was hit, thank goodness. That was the end of that stunt. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: The boys' stunt probably lasts: Options: - Several hours of the night on occasions - The whole night - More than a whole night - not enough information
Answer: Several hours of the night on occasions

Question: It has become increasingly common for academics to use social media to communicate with wider audiences. Twitter, like many other social platforms, typically measures success in terms of numbers of followers, likes and retweets, but this only tells us something about the spreading of messages but not necessarily whether the content of the messages is understood or embraced. One way to ascertain this is through network and language analysis, which, used together, can tell us how effective the communication is. Economists tweet less, mention fewer people and have fewer conversations with strangers than a comparable group of experts in the sciences, and use less accessible language with words that are more complex, with more abbreviations and with a more distant tone. Their tweets are less personal and less inclusive than those used by scientists. This is what appeared in April 2017 when we gathered data on tens of thousands of tweets from the Twitter accounts of both the top 25 economists and 25 scientists as identified by IDEAS and Science, including the top three economists at the time, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Erik Brynjolfsson and, on the other side, the top three scientists, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, and Richard Dawkins. At that time those accounts covered roughly two thirds of all the following. The timing is significant because 2016 has been declared the year of post-truth politics, the year in which appeals to emotions (pathos) superseded the significance of factual evidence-based information (logos), affecting people's constructions and interpretations of events. This has been accompanied by the growing prominence of political "alt" movements (e.g. UKIP, the Alt-right) and their aggressive, provocative, and populist narratives, and "fake news" leading to political shock events such as Brexit and the Trump election. The relatively low traction of economists in these public debates has been and continues to be an important issue. Does the public not trust economists? Don't they understand... According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: Who are the scientists Options: - people scientist - environmental scienctists - not enough information - social scientist
Answer: not enough information

Question: "Have you ever been in a situation that was getting out of control and you were able to calm it down before it escalated further? What was the situation and what did you do or say?" As senior members of a Boy Scout Troop, other adults and I had to instruct two younger member on how to recognize and control emotions in the context of conflict. These two guys had a history of conflicts and I knew people won't always be present to control them. They had to grow up and be self-sufficient. On one camping trip they yet again had another heated argument over something trivial that kept escalating. Rather than jump in, I wanted to see how they deescalate the situation on their own. Suddenly, one of them pulls out a pocket knife and says "[insert demand here] or I'm gonna [insert some action with a knife to a person]." The situation has clearly escalated too far. Immediately I rushed in and yelled, "STOP! DROP IT, NOW!" He immediately dropped the knife, sat down, and began crying. What happens after that is irrelevant. Perhaps it's due to my quiet nature and sudden outburst that produced the shock effect. But more importantly the use of straight-forward, succinct commands can control the situation because all parties involved are automatically in natural fight-flight mode where elaborate, long explanations aren't going to be interpreted correctly by listeners for the purposes of deescalating the situation's climax. The long talk comes when the immediate conflict is temporarily resolved. * IMPORTANT NOTE: This incident is not a reflection on the Boy Scout of America, its spirit, or the use of such tools. The pocket knife is commonly used throughout camping trips. We have a set of rules and responsibilities set to the users so that they are used for the camping purposes. As an Eagle Scout myself, I am proud of the values promoted. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: Who was at an Eagle Scout rank? Options: - The author - Other adults. - The author and several other adults. - not enough information
Answer:
The author