Earth processes have not changed over time. The way things happen now is the same way things happened in the past. Mountains grow and mountains slowly wear away. The same process is at work the same as it was billions of years ago. As the environment changes, living creatures adapt. They change over time. Some organisms may not be able to adapt. They become extinct. Becoming extinct means they die out completely. Some geologists study the history of the Earth. They want to learn about Earths past. They use clues from rocks and fossils. They use these clues to make sense of events. The goal is to place things in the order they happened. They also want to know how long it took for those events to happen.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer: What happens when some living organism do not adapt to changes in the environment?

The CIA's senior management saw problems with the armed Predator as well, problems that Clarke and even Black and Allen were inclined to minimize. One (which also applied to reconnaissance flights) was money. A Predator cost about $3 million. If the CIA flew Predators for its own reconnaissance or covert action purposes, it might be able to borrow them from the Air Force, but it was not clear that the Air Force would bear the cost if a vehicle went down. Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz took the position that the CIA should have to pay for it; the CIA disagreed. Second, Tenet in particular questioned whether he, as Director of Central Intelligence, should operate an armed Predator." This was new ground,"he told us. Tenet ticked off key questions: What is the chain of command? Who takes the shot? Are America's leaders comfortable with the CIA doing this, going outside of normal military command and control? Charlie Allen told us that when these questions were discussed at the CIA, he and the Agency's executive director, A. B." Buzzy" Krongard, had said that either one of them would be happy to pull the trigger, but Tenet was appalled, telling them that they had no authority to do it, nor did he. Third, the Hellfire warhead carried by the Predator needed work. It had been built to hit tanks, not people. It needed to be designed to explode in a different way, and even then had to be targeted with extreme precision. In the configuration planned by the Air Force through mid-2001, the Predator's missile would not be able to hit a moving vehicle. White House officials had seen the Predator video of the "man in white." On July 11, Hadley tried to hurry along preparation of the armed system. He directed McLaughlin, Wolfowitz, and Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman Richard Myers to deploy Predators capable of being armed no later than September 1.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer: Why was there concern with the "chain of command"?

Recommendation: Congressional oversight for intelligence-and counterterrorism-is now dysfunctional. Congress should address this problem. We have considered various alternatives: A joint committee on the old model of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy is one. A single committee in each house of Congress, combining authorizing and appropriating authorities, is another. The new committee or committees should conduct continuing studies of the activities of the intelligence agencies and report problems relating to the development and use of intelligence to all members of the House and Senate. We have already recommended that the total level of funding for intelligence be made public, and that the national intelligence program be appropriated to the National Intelligence Director, not to the secretary of defense. We also recommend that the intelligence committee should have a subcommittee specifically dedicated to oversight, freed from the consuming responsibility of working on the budget. The resolution creating the new intelligence committee structure should grant subpoena authority to the committee or committees. The majority party's representation on this committee should never exceed the minority's representation by more than one. Four of the members appointed to this committee or committees should be a member who also serves on each of the following additional committees: Armed Services, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, and the Defense Appropriations subcommittee. In this way the other major congressional interests can be brought together in the new committee's work. Members should serve indefinitely on the intelligence committees, without set terms, thereby letting them accumulate expertise. The committees should be smaller-perhaps seven or nine members in each house-so that each member feels a greater sense of responsibility, and accountability, for the quality of the committee's work. The leaders of the Department of Homeland Security now appear before 88 committees and subcommittees of Congress. One expert witness (not a member of the administration) told us that this is perhaps the single largest obstacle impeding the department's successful development. The one attempt to consolidate such committee authority, the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, may be eliminated. The Senate does not have even this. Congress needs to establish for the Department of Homeland Security the kind of clear authority and responsibility that exist to enable the Justice Department to deal with crime and the Defense Department to deal with threats to national security.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer: In what way can other congressional interests can be brought together

Reuters Holdings PLC said Michael Reupke resigned as general manager to pursue unspecified interests, a move the news organization termed an "amicable separation." Mr. Reupke, 52 years old and a 27-year Reuters veteran, had been the information-services company's general manager for only six months. His appointment to that post, which has senior administrative, staff and policy responsibilities, followed a several-year tenure as Reuters's editor in chief. No successor was named, and Mr. Reupke's duties will be split among three other senior Reuters executives, the company said. In a telephone interview, Mr. Reupke said his departure was for "personal reasons," which he declined to specify. "There is no business reason for my departure," nor any disagreement over policy, he added. He also rejected reports that his departure stemmed from disappointment the general manager's post hadn't also led to a board directorship at the London-based news organization. Mr. Reupke was one of three executives on Reuters's eight-person executive committee who didn't also serve on the company's board of directors. "If I were choosing the people of tomorrow, I would have chosen the people who are now on the board," he said. A Reuters spokesman said the departure reflects "no change in strategy or profits." Mark Shepperd, an analyst at UBS Philips & Drew in London, said, "I suspect (the departure) will be fairly irrelevant for the company. I would be very surprised if his departure signals any change in strategy or change in profit expectations." On London's Stock Exchange, Reuters shares rose five pence to 913 pence ($14.43). In the U.S. over-the-counter market, American depositary shares for Reuters, each representing three shares in the London market, closed unchanged at $43.875. The senior of the three executives who will assume Mr. Reupke's duties is Nigel Judah, 58, finance director and a Reuters board director. Peter Holland, 45, deputy general manager, becomes director of corporate affairs. And Patrick Mannix, 46, international technical manager, becomes director of group quality programs.
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Answer:
Does the activity in American depository Reuters shares reflect the opinion stated by Mark Shepperd?