Read the following context and answer the question. Context: I saw one last night on an episode of Designated Survivor. To qualify this, I'm not normally bothered by product placements. Sometimes they can even add to the scene. But this one was bad, really bad. Agent is busy hunting for baddies. Finishes questioning one naughty person who climbs in his Ford F150 and speeds off. So far, so good - it is the sort of vehicle a country-living billionaire bad-guy would drive. The agent then pulls out her phone and Move to close up of phone screen showing Ford app already loaded (and screen unlocked!). Agent slowly moves finger to app. Does something. Pause as app does fancy graphics. Cut to car interior. Shot of dash, showing Ford logo on steering wheel. It's bright blue - are they not normally grey or more subtle? Pause for a second Zoom in on dash. Dash light up. Car starts. Show pretty dash lights for a second or so. Cut to agent Agent walks to car, gets in drives off. Lingering shot of rear of car. It was just so clumsy. Massive halt to the flow of the scene to show it. In most films you never see anyone starting cars, putting on seatbelts or similar unless this is part of the plot because it's unnecessary and not interesting to watch. I sort of expected the remote start function to have some sort of relevance later but no, it was totally ignored. Added to that: There was no password or security on her phone - and this is an agent investigating super secret stuff. If you don't show her unlocking the phone, why show her lovingly prodding the app? They are as relevant. She unlocked and started the car while she was 2030 paces away, on the grounds of a suspect ranch. Someone could easily have jumped in the car. Not very security conscious. Question: What kind of information did the naughty person give the agent? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- he refused to speak
- he made up a completely untrue scenario
- not enough information
- he told the agent the truth to everything asked

Answer: not enough information

Question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: U.S. lawmakers grilled Trump administration officials Tuesday about the war in Afghanistan, saying the new White House strategy was inconsistent and was not producing results. The comments made at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing reflected growing frustration in Congress about the U.S.-led war, which is entering its 17th year. As recently as November, General John Nicholson, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, acknowledged that the conflict remained a stalemate. Since then, a wave of high-profile insurgent attacks have rocked the capital, Kabul. The Taliban now controls or contests almost half the country, according to latest U.S. estimates. Despite the setbacks, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan, who is helping oversee the new White House strategy, gave a positive assessment of the conflict. "The president's South Asia strategy is showing some signs of progress," Sullivan said. "On the battlefield, we are seeing the Taliban's momentum begin to slow." But lawmakers from both parties expressed skepticism. "Something is clearly not working," said Senator Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat and longtime Afghan war critic. "By any standard, the current security situation is grim." Some lawmakers took aim at President Donald Trump, who last week said he didn't want to talk with the Taliban a statement that seemingly contradicted his own strategy. After Sullivan and a top Pentagon official told the lawmakers that the U.S. was in fact still open to negotiations with the Taliban, lawmakers pressed for more details. "You can see that the world and those involved in the peace process may be pretty confused about what the U.S. position is. What is it?" asked Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat. Sullivan said he thought Trump was expressing a reaction to last month's terrorist attacks, and was pointing out that "significant elements of the Taliban are not prepared to negotiate." "And it may take a long time before they are willing to negotiate," he added. But many in the Senate appear... Question: After the end of the story, what will General John Nicholson try to achieve in the next years with Afghanistan? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- keep a steady stalemate at least
- give up
- improve from the stalemate
Answer: improve from the stalemate

Question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: If you turned on the TV towards the end of 2002 you could have been forgiven for thinking that Britain had gone absolutely horseshit mental. Every week, it seemed, another pretty young girl from a nice family, who was happy and popular and always did well at school, was being kidnapped or murdered by what the Sun newspaper cheerfully termed 'evil paedo scum'. Naming and shaming was as popular a feature in the Murdoch press as Page Three girls and discounted holidays to Butlin's. Of course you can't blame parents for wanting to keep their children safe; that's pretty much the job description of a parent. And, on the face of it, the tabloids were doing a public service in warning us about the paedophile menace lurking in our midst. The problem came when it turned out that a huge number of these concerned tabloid-reading parents were also absolute fucking morons. For every story of an actual sex offender being driven from their house by a baying mob there was one like that of Dr Yvette Cloete, a doctor at the Royal Gwent Hospital in Newport, South Wales, who returned home from work to find that a group of 'concerned parents' had daubed the word 'paedo' on her front door in bright red paint. Dr Cloete was a consultant paediatrician. Easy mistake. If you're an absolute fucking moron. And so it was that one hung-over morning, after reading yet another story about vigilantes who had threatened to stone Maxine Carr, the girlfriend of Soham killer Ian Huntley, to death during her high-profile trial for perverting the course of justice, I decided to set up a website parodying this collective national madness. The result of two or three hours of hung-over labour was thinkofthechildren.co.uk, a spoof campaign site which claimed to offer a handy online guide for crazy vigilantes of all stripes to co-ordinate their crazy vigilante efforts. Although there are a few parts of the site I'm still a bit proud of, the majority of it was, I freely admit, satire of the lowest order. Question: Who is Murdoch? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- A journalist.
- A newspaper editor.
- A newspaper publisher.
- not enough information
Answer:
A newspaper publisher.