Question:
When 74-year-old Penny Sweat was evicted from the HUD-subsidized Glendale Senior Housing in Salt Lake City last month, she moved to a nonsubsidized apartment at five times her previous rent because she was unaware of her rights. It turns out the manager of the seniors complex, its attorneys and government overseers were unaware, too. Lee Kemp, a hearing-impaired World War II disabled vet, also was evicted, but he contacted Utah Legal Services and was told to stay put. Attorney Marty Blaustein then notified Utah Nonprofit Housing Corp., the building's owner, that Kemp's eviction was not legal and that he had a right to a hearing. That didn't stop Utah Nonprofit Housing's attorneys from then sending Kemp a summons to show cause why he had not moved out. Meanwhile, Sweat's granddaughter called Salt Lake City housing officials, federal housing officials, state officials and several agents of Utah Nonprofit Housing to find out about her grandmother's rights. Nobody knew. Blaustein then took Sweat's case along with Kemp's and demanded her ousting be rectified. Utah Nonprofit Housing President Marion Willey returned from an out-of-town trip and learned HUD procedures were not followed. The eviction was activated because of ongoing personality conflicts among seniors in the complex, he said, and the new building manager decided the problems were with Sweat and Kemp. Several tenants blame other neighbors as perpetrators of the rift, however. Willey said when his building manager called attorneys retained by the company, they erroneously told her she could go ahead and kick out the tenants. When she called HUD to make sure, the inquiry got bogged down in bureaucracy and nobody called her back. Willey says he has offered Sweat and Kemp apartments in another complex operated by his company at their old rates. He also is retaining new attorneys. After reading the above, is "Penny" the correct answer to the question "Who knew what Penny's rights were?"?

Answer:
no

Question:
The Legal Services Corp. (LSC), a quasi-governmental agency that provides legal aid for the poor, would receive $329 million in fiscal 2004 under President Bush's proposal - the same amount requested in 2003 and approved for 2002 and 2001. If approved, the hold-the-line request for LSC means its budget would erode with inflation for another year, but it could be worse for the organization: Many conservatives fought for years to do away with the LSC altogether, saying legal services attorneys were spending too much time fighting for liberal causes or pursuing politically charged cases against the government instead of representing the needy. Opposition to the organization has cooled since 1996, when Congress approved restrictions (PL 104-134) on the sorts of cases federally funded legal aid attorneys can take. (1996 Almanac, p. 5-36) Republicans cut the organization's budget deeply in 1996, but its funding has recovered slowly. Last month, in the omnibus spending bill for fiscal 2003, the Senate added a onetime increase of $19 million, which, if approved in the final version, would bring the LSC budget to $348 million. The money would go to help states, such as Michigan and Ohio, that lost money when the organization redistributed its funding based on census counts made in 2000 of poor households. If the extra money survives a conference with the House and makes it to the president's desk, LSC supporters may try to include it in the organization's fiscal 2004 funding. The federal government began funding some programs to provide legal assistance to the poor in the late 1960s; the Legal Services Corporation was created in 1974 (PL 93-355). LSC gives nearly all its money to state and local agencies, which provide civil legal assistance to those whose income is less than 125 percent of the federal poverty level - $11,075 a year for an individual and $22,625 for a family of four. Funding for legal services goes to defend needy clients in domestic violence cases, custody cases and other such matters, according to LSC. Since 1996, lawyers who receive money from Legal Services have been prohibited from such activities as lobbying legislatures, filing class-action suits, participating in political demonstrations or strikes, pursuing abortion-related litigation, representing illegal aliens or prisoners, or defending public housing tenants evicted because they were charged with selling drugs After reading the above, is "The NAACP" the correct answer to the question "Opposition to which organization has cooled since 1996?"?

Answer:
no

Question:
Coleco Industries Inc., a once high-flying toy maker whose stock peaked at $65 a share in the early 1980s, filed a Chapter 11 reorganization plan that provides just 1.125 cents a share for common stockholders. Under the plan, unsecured creditors, who are owed about $430 million, would receive about $92 million, or 21 cents for each dollar they are owed. In addition, they will receive stock in the reorganized company, which will be named Ranger Industries Inc. After these payments, about $225,000 will be available for the 20 million common shares outstanding. The Avon, Conn., company's stock hit a high in 1983 after it unveiled its Adam home computer, but the product was plagued with glitches and the company's fortunes plunged. But Coleco bounced back with the introduction of the Cabbage Patch dolls, whose sales hit $600 million in 1985. But as the craze died, Coleco failed to come up with another winner and filed for bankruptcy-law protection in July 1988. The plan was filed jointly with unsecured creditors in federal bankruptcy court in New York and must be approved by the court. After reading the above, is "8 years" the correct answer to the question "How long after their stocks hit a high did Coleco file for bankruptcy-law protection?"?

Answer:
no

Question:
These incoherent words threw the first glimpse of light on the meaning of her distress and penitence. I doubt if the best woman in Christendom would so reproach and abase herself, if convicted of even a worse sin than the secret use of those stimulants for which the "charny" is a Martial equivalent. No Martialist would dream of poisoning his blood and besotting his brain with alcohol in any form. But their opiates affect a race addicted to physical repose, to sensuous enjoyment rather than to sensual excitement, and to lucid intellectual contemplation, with a sense of serene delight as supremely delicious to their temperament as the dreamy illusions of haschisch to the Turk, the fierce frenzy of bhang to the Malay, or the wild excitement of brandy or Geneva to the races of Northern Europe. But as with the luxury of intoxication in Europe, so in Mars indulgence in these drugs, freely permitted to the one sex, is strictly forbidden by opinion and domestic rule to the other. A lady discovered in the use of "charny" is as deeply disgraced as an European matron detected in the secret enjoyment of spirits and cigars; and her lord and master takes care to render her sufficiently conscious of her fault. After reading the above, is "Alcohol" the correct answer to the question "What was the luxury intoxication of Europe?"?

Answer:
no