Question: His eyes were open and his head bobbed around at an impossible angle. He was sitting in about forty feet of water, stone dead, one arm pinned between the rocks. As best I could tell, he had been dead when he landed there. The mud and ooze around him were as serene and smooth as he was. The cop who was assisting me swam over and made a palms up gesture. I shrugged back at him and began to work the body loose. The corpse had only one leg, and as I worked I wondered what he had been doing in the lake. I got the arm free and kicked toward the quicksilver surface above me. The body turned bloated and heavy when I broke water with it, and it took three of us to load it into the police launch. I dried off and got a coke out of the cooler. It was getting to be another Texas scorcher, and the sunlight bouncing off the surface of the lake felt like it had needles in it. My mouth was dry from breathing canned air and the carbonation burned like fire. Winslow, from the sheriff's office, sat down next to me. 'I appreciate this, Dan,' he said. 'No problem.' Sam Winslow and I had grown up together about twenty miles outside Austin in a little town called Coupland. We'd fought a lot as kids, and there were still plenty of differences in our politics and educations. But being on the police and fire rescue squad had brought me closer to him again, and I was glad of it. A private detective needs all the friends he can get. 'What do you make of it?' I asked him. 'Accidental drowning, looks like.' I raised an eyebrow but didn't say anything. 'He's got a bump on the head that could have come off a rock. We'll see what the coroner says.' 'Any idea who he is?' Winslow shook his head. He'd gained weight in his face recently and his jowls vibrated with the gesture. Question: What was the main character's name? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- Dan
- Winslow
- not enough information
- Sam
Answer: Dan

input with options: The black-and-white aerial footage shows a line of purported Taliban insurgents slowly walking along a path in a lightly forested desert in Afghanistan's western Farah province. Suddenly, the screen flashes to white as the men disappear in a fireball the result of a bomb dropped from a U.S. MQ-9 "Reaper" drone. "Taliban fighters on the run following Afghan-led offensive in #Farah province, #Afghanistan. Video shows U.S. airpower (MQ-9s) in support," declared a short message accompanying the video, which was posted on the official account of the U.S. military in Afghanistan. Subsequent footage showed more Taliban scrambling, in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid the airstrikes. The Pentagon footage was released Wednesday, as U.S., NATO and Afghan government forces were locked in a fierce battle with the Taliban for control of the capital of Farah, which borders Iran. The tweet was unusually graphic. While the U.S. military often releases footage of buildings or vehicles being destroyed, it does not as frequently distribute videos that show individuals being bombed. Less than 24 hours later, the U.S. Air Force posted its own Afghanistan-related tweet that raised eyebrows this one referencing a viral audio clip that has sparked a lighthearted online debate among those who hear the word "Laurel" and others who hear "Yanny." "The Taliban Forces in Farah city #Afghanistan would much rather have heard #Yanny or #Laurel than the deafening #BRRRT they got courtesy of our #A10," read the Air Force tweet. The Air Force has since apologized and deleted the tweet, saying it was sent in "poor taste." The USFOR-A tweet remains. In a statement to VOA, a Pentagon spokesperson said the tweets do not represent a new social media strategy. "As with any other organization, the post was an attempt to bring awareness to a major/ongoing organizational activity by tying it to references or conversations already trending with their established audiences," said Lieutenant Colonel Kone Faulkner. Question: Who was the Pentagon spokesman? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- Yanny
- Laurel
- not enough information
- Kone Faulkner
output: Kone Faulkner

Q: Two signatures. That's all that's needed to force a wide-ranging House debate and votes on border security and the immigration status of 700,000 undocumented young people brought to the U.S. as children. Since moderate Republicans opposed House leadership two weeks ago with a rare discharge petition to force a so-called "queen of the hill" debate (House rule based on the most votes) on immigration, the measure has steadily accumulated support within their own party. The petition needs 218 signatures to start that debate and with the assumption that all 193 House Democrats will sign on Republicans need just two more signatures. But that effort now goes on hold as Congress leaves town for an 11-day holiday recess, giving all sides breathing room to figure out what comes next. Many of the 23 Republican signers of the petition face tough re-election races in their districts this November. The debate over Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients has challenged lawmakers since last September, when U.S. President Donald Trump ended the program, calling on Congress to find a permanent legislative solution. Lawmakers will return to Washington facing an immediate deadline. Representative Jeff Denham, a California Republican who is one of the leaders of the petition effort, told reporters that June 7 would be the absolute last moment to allow the petition to mature before lawmakers run up against a seven-week summer recess. Denham said talks with House leadership and the House Freedom Caucus, a conservative voting bloc seeking significant security concessions in return for a citizenship path for DACA recipients, have been productive. "We've had an agreement in principle," Denham said of a deal that would provide a 12-year path to citizenship for DACA recipients, known colloquially as Dreamers. "Now it's trying to put that information on paper. So, assuming we can continue to move forward, that is something we would bring to our conference on the 7th when we have our two-hour immigration meeting,... Question: How long will it take for the House to debate the immigration bill? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- More than a minute
- About 20 years
- not enough information
- About 10 years

A:
More than a minute