Question: Read the following paragraph and extract the answer for the question: Where does Cole meet the woman he eventually proposes to? As Cole shops, an armed robber demands that the cashier, Michael, hand over all the money in the safe. Michael empties the cash register and says that there is no safe in the shop. As the robber becomes increasingly agitated, Cole approaches him, calls him a coward, and dares the robber to shoot him. Michael intercedes and attempts to wrestle the gun away from the robber, only to be shot in the gut. After Cole calls an ambulance, he receives a phone call from a friend who invites him out to drinks. Cole accepts on the condition that it is not a house party. Cole is frustrated to learn that it is a house party, and he goes downstairs to drink alone, where he meets Maya, the host. The two discuss an approaching asteroid. Maya says that modern stress would evaporate in the face of the meaninglessness of certain doom, and Cole says that everything would matter in that circumstance. The two dance to Maya's favorite song and soon begin dating. A series of flashforwards depict life in post-apocalyptic Scotland after the asteroid has arrived as Cole and Maya hide from alien spaceships, mixed with scenes in the present of their relationship leading up to those events. When they discuss children, Cole says he does not want any, and Maya reveals she is incapable. As the asteroid grows closer, Cole asks Maya to marry him. Maya jokingly accepts, and Cole insists that he is serious; now serious, Maya again agrees. Although initially dismissive of the danger, scientists become increasingly worried about a collision. Various missions to divert the asteroid end in failure, putting the world on edge. In the flashforwards, Cole and Maya's relationship deteriorates in the face of their hardship in finding food and shelter.
Answer: a house party

Question: Read the following paragraph and extract the answer for the question: What is the last name of the people whose daughter, also named Catherine, married the Italian merchant Michel Burlamacchi? The identity of the donor has not been established, although a number of suggestions have been advanced over the last 200 years. Harbison suggests the work's small scale indicates that it functioned as a portable altarpiece rather than as a private devotional work, and thus was commissioned by or for a member of the clergy. Other art historians have argued that the donor may have been a Genoese merchant. This belief has been fed by the triptych's similarity to Giovanni Mazone's Virgin and Child altarpiece in Pontremoli, Tuscany, which may place it in the Italian region of Liguria at latest by the end of the 15th century. Damaged coats of arms on the inner frames have been linked to the Giustiniani family, known for establishing trade links with Bruges in the 14th and 15th centuries. If not commissioned by that family, historical record place the work at least in their possession by the end of the century. In the early 1800s, Frances Weale attempted to place Michele Giustiniani as the donor, however later historical research has been unable to verify his presence in Bruges around 1437, and he seems to have returned to Italy by 1430.Mid-twentieth century technical examination revealed the Giustiniani coats of arms may have been painted over an earlier heraldic design, perhaps as early as the 15th century, whose signifiance and history is now lost. Dhanens theorises that a member of the Giustiniani family may have established other associations with St. Michael and St. Catherine, advancing that they were a member of the Italian Rapondi family, whose trading house in Paris was named after St. Catherine. Their daughter, also named Catherine, married the Italian merchant Michel Burlamacchi (Bollemard in Flemish) from Lucca, who was active in Bruges. From this Dhanens theorises the piece was commissioned as a wedding gift for the couple. Documents show weavers in Wervik paid taxes to Catherine Rapondi and in September 1434, when Michele Burlamacchi was tax collector in that town, van Eyck received a stipend funded...
Answer: Rapondi

Question: Read the following paragraph and extract the answer for the question: What is the full name of the person who campaigned to remove the inscription from the Monument to the Great Fire of London? Radical rebuilding schemes poured in for the gutted City and were encouraged by Charles. If it had been rebuilt under some of these plans, London would have rivalled Paris in Baroque magnificence (see Evelyn's plan on the right). The Crown and the City authorities attempted to establish "to whom all the houses and ground did in truth belong" to negotiate with their owners about compensation for the large-scale remodelling that these plans entailed, but that unrealistic idea had to be abandoned. Exhortations to bring workmen and measure the plots on which the houses had stood were mostly ignored by people worried about day-to-day survival, as well as by those who had left the capital; for one thing, with the shortage of labour following the fire, it was impossible to secure workmen for the purpose. Apart from Wren and Evelyn, it is known that Robert Hooke, Valentine Knight, and Richard Newcourt proposed rebuilding plans. With the complexities of ownership unresolved, none of the grand Baroque schemes could be realised for a City of piazzas and avenues; there was nobody to negotiate with, and no means of calculating how much compensation should be paid. Instead, much of the old street plan was recreated in the new City, with improvements in hygiene and fire safety: wider streets, open and accessible wharves along the length of the Thames, with no houses obstructing access to the river, and, most importantly, buildings constructed of brick and stone, not wood. New public buildings were created on their predecessors' sites; perhaps the most famous is St Paul's Cathedral and its smaller cousins, Christopher Wren's 50 new churches. On Charles' initiative, a Monument to the Great Fire of London was erected near Pudding Lane, designed by Christopher Wren and Robert Hooke, standing 61 metres (200 ft) tall and known simply as "The Monument". It is a familiar London landmark which has since given its name to a tube station. In 1668, accusations against the Catholics were added to the inscription on the Monument which...
Answer:
Charles Pearson