input: OPTIONS:
- A couple of minutes
- A few hours
- Many days
- not enough information Now, answer this question: It was a made-for-TV moment that all presidents would relish, but it seemed especially significant for the man who turned a reality TV career into a successful bid for the presidency. Donald Trump triumphantly greeted the three Americans released by North Korea in the early morning darkness at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington early Thursday, an image one can expect to see over and over again come the 2020 U.S. presidential election campaign. "It was a very important thing to all of us to be able to get these three great people out," Trump told reporters on the tarmac. He then went on to speculate that live television coverage of the arrival "probably broke the all-time in history television rating for 3 o'clock in the morning." It was a moment the president gladly seized given that his White House has been buffeted by a chaotic mix of policy and personal drama in recent days. The prospect of a potentially historic breakthrough on North Korea could move a number of other unwelcome distractions to the side, including the ongoing Russia investigation, the growing legal difficulties for Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, and the soap opera that the Stormy Daniels story has become. Daniels is the adult film actress who claims she once had an affair with Trump. He denies the claim. Trump also announced Thursday on Twitter that he will meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on June 12 in Singapore. A new CNN poll found that 77 percent of those surveyed support Trump meeting the North Korean leader, and 53 percent approve of his handling of the North Korea issue generally. Those numbers are in keeping with a general trend of late that has seen the president's poll ratings improving, perhaps in part because of the strong economy. According to the above context, answer the following question. The meeting with the Americans released probably lasted:
A:
output: A few hours

As U.S. political candidates make their final appeals, voters in 35 states will decide policy issues Tuesday that include legalizing recreational use of marijuana and restricting access to guns and ammunition, voting yes or no on nearly 160 state ballot initiatives. California's Proposition 64, which is leading in the polls, could create a multibillion-dollar marijuana industry by legalizing the recreational use the drug for adults in the state. Similar measures are on the ballot in Arizona, Nevada, Maine and Massachusetts. Marijuana could be legalized for medical use in Florida and three other states. Medical marijuana is already permitted in half the 50 U.S. states, and recreational use is allowed in Alaska, Colorado, Washington state, Oregon and the District of Columbia. Marijuana is banned under federal law, but U.S. officials have taken a hands-off approach on the issue. Voters in Maine and Nevada are considering measures that would expand background checks for gun purchases, which is already required for buying guns from dealers, by extending the provision to private sales. Californians will consider measures requiring background checks for buyers of ammunition and banning high-capacity ammunition magazines. Washington state has a measure that would allow the courts to bar the sale of guns to individuals deemed an extreme risk to themselves or others. Californians are considering whether to eliminate the death penalty with Proposition 62, or to maintain capital punishment and make the process more efficient with Proposition 66, which supporters say makes it more fair to victims of violent crimes. Twenty states and the District of Columbia have abolished or overturned capital punishment on the grounds that it is unequally applied to minority populations and that innocent people are sometimes convicted. South Dakotans will decide whether to make statewide offices nonpartisan and create a citizens commission to redraw voting districts after each 10-year national census, removing the task from legislators,... According to the above context, answer the following question. What is probably true about California?

OPTIONS:
- It does not find marijuana harmful
- not enough information
- They create industry
- it is in need of income

Answer: It does not find marijuana harmful

Problem: OPTIONS:
- her husband
- not enough information
- the ophthalmologist
- the author did
Q: I lost sight in one eye when in college, I had two preschool children at the time. I was walking through the house one morning and suddenly I could see NOTHING out of one eye. When I told my husband,who was right there when it happened, he assumed my eye was just blurry or something had gotten in the eye. He took me to the ophthalmologist who verified that I could not see out of the eye. Then we subsequently got the worse news that it was a neurological condition with a long name I do not remember that there was nothing he could do about. He said that I would either get my sight back or I you and all we could do was wait and see if it came back. This was right before finals that semester but he told me I absolutely could not be studying or using my good eye for reading or basically anything that would strain it or I could end up losing sight in that eye also. Needless to say, as a mom of two children ages 2 1/2 and 6 months,I could not afford to lose ALL of my sight! So, I had to wait. I could not drive like that either which made matters worse. Both my husband and I were in school fulltime (until then), fortunately it was the end of the semester, unfortunately it was BEFORE finals. My sight did come back but not for about 5 months. When it first started to come back I still couldn't drive because although I could see I did not have my peripheral vision, that did not fully come back for quite a while. I cannot imagine it a person who goes totally blind goes through, I just know for me it was not an easy to to go through. According to the above context, answer the following question. Who verified that the author could not see out of one eye?
Answer: the ophthalmologist

Kurt Vonnegut, writer and famous speech giver at US university graduation ceremonies, made this point to one group of soon-to-be-non-students: If this isn't nice, I don't know what is. It is the end of a story about his grandpa who, on a summer's afternoon, would find the shade of a tree under which he could rest with a glass of homemade lemonade. The family didn't have a lot of cash, the grandpa worked hard every day of his life, but no matter how relentless the day-to-day was, he would always repeat this phrase as a reminder to those around him that, at the end of the day, this is all still amazing to be part of. This kind of optimism, as you might call it, can often disappear in a flash in the busy-ness of business or school. Things become impossible, hardgoing, relentless(ly difficult). And the reasons we give for that busyness nearly always involve someone or something else - the system, the job, the weather... For many years, people would ask the salutary "how are you?" and my answer was a stock one: "I'm tired." It was my wife who pointed it out to me, presumably because everyone else was too polite to express their boredom with my reply. The fact is, most people feel tired most of the time, until they make a switch in their life. That switch is deciding that the only person who can turn that frown upside down, who can make crazy stuff happen (or attempt to, and enjoy the process), is you. And in Vonnegut's case, that switch came from saying out loud the one phrase that brings us back to the good elements in what we or our team or our family is doing at any given moment: If this isn't nice, I don't know what is. According to the above context, answer the following question. Who does the author believe is responsible for changing his attitude?
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- himself
- Kurt
- his wife

Answer:
himself