Problem: OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- They believe the amendment is not just fixing a typo.
- They believe in government access.
- They believe most free people value rights.
Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: The battle lines are drawn once again. U.S. law enforcement agencies and Silicon Valley are getting ready to face off on the issue of privacy. This latest battle is focused on a 30-year-old law on government access to electronic communications and associated data. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act was a forward-looking statute when enacted in 1986, but technology has dramatically outpaced the ECPA. The U.S. Congress has been looking into ways to revise the law in order to preserve the privacy of internet users while also preserving the legal tools necessary for government agencies to enforce the law and protect the public. The late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called privacy "the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people." The Senate Judiciary Committee this week is considering an amendment to the ECPA that would expand the government's ability to collect data using a National Security Letter, which doesn't require a court order. The amendment would authorize the FBI to demand a person's internet browser history and internet protocol address, enabling investigators to see what websites a person visits, how much time is spent on a particular site and the location of the internet user all without judicial oversight. The FBI contends that such data is covered implicitly under current statute, which was written years ago and only explicitly covers data normally associated with telephone records. FBI Director James Comey has said the amendment is needed to fix "a typo" in the ECPA that has hindered the bureau's ability to work in "a very, very big and practical way." But a letter sent earlier this week warned Congress that such an amendment is opposed by tech giants and civil liberties organizations. "This expansion of the NSL statute has been characterized by some government officials as merely fixing 'a typo' in the law," the letter said. "In reality, however, it would dramatically expand the ability of the FBI to get sensitive information about users' online... Question: Why did Google sign the letter? Answer:
Answer: They believe the amendment is not just fixing a typo.

Problem:OPTIONS:
- the hairdresser wanted to cut them
- the hairdresser saw a bald spot
- the hairdresser thought they would increase in number
- not enough information

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: This is a beauty myth that I have been wanting to bust for a while as I am surprised how many people actually believe it. I am quite vain so hate having visible grey hairs. Having naturally dark brown hair means that even a single grey hair is very noticeable. From the age of about 22 or 23 I discovered that I had about five grey hairs floating about. As soon as I could see them I'd pull them out. Then, a few months later when they were rearing their ugly heads again - pluck, out they'd come again! Up until I was about 27 or 28 I only had these 5 grey hairs, well that was all I could find anyway. Then from 28 onwards they have been inviting their friends and relatives to move in and I am slowly losing the plucking battle (side note: this increase in grey hairs at 28 was also the year that I got married...I wonder if their is any correlation between getting married and going grey??). Whenever I was having a conversation with someone about grey hairs and I'd mention that I pull mine out, they'd look at me horrified - 'you can't do that, seven more will grow back in its place' they would all warn me. Even my hairdresser was horrified that I plucked my grey hairs. One day when she was straightening my hair I could see a stray grey sticking up and it was driving me crazy. I asked her to pull it out and she refused saying that I'd end up with more if she pulled it out. I have never believed this old wives tale, mostly because for five years I kept plucking my greys yet they didn't increase in number. Plus it made no sense to me. Why would plucking greys cause more greys to grow when the same is not true for your coloured hair. Imagine if it were true - that would mean that the cure for baldness would be to pluck out your hair as each hair you pluck causes seven more to grow in its place - doesn't really make sense, does it? Or worse, each time you waxed your legs, seven hairs replaced each pulled one - what state would your legs be in now? Question: Why was the hairdresser horrified that the writer plucked her grey hairs? Answer:
****
A: the hairdresser thought they would increase in number

input: OPTIONS:
- for extra perks and vacation time for politicians
- not enough information
- for physical barriers and a 93 mile wall at US-Mexico border
- for expensive items for politicians family members Now, answer this question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: The U.S. Congress is one step closer to averting a government shutdown Thursday after the U.S. House easily passed a $1.3 trillion spending plan that would end months of the government operating under short-term spending bills. The measure, approved by a 256-167 vote, now goes to the Senate, which has until midnight Friday to approve it and avert the year's third government closure. The massive bipartisan bill would keep the government funded until the end of September. Lawmakers had just hours to read the nearly 2,200-page bill released Wednesday night. Under Senate rules, a single senator can delay the vote but not stop it entirely. Senator Rand Paul has objected to the short time given to members to read the lengthy legislation. As of Thursday afternoon, the Senate was waiting to see how the vote would proceed, raising the prospect of another brief government shutdown. With midterm elections looming in November, the bill likely marks the final time Capitol Hill will consider major legislation this year. The measure would fulfill President Donald Trump's vow to boost military funding but provides funding for limited parts of his immigration agenda. The bill, which the White House said Trump supports, would give Trump a huge budget increase for the military, including a 2.4 percent pay raise for military personnel. "Today marks the beginning of a new era for the United States military," House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement Thursday. "This legislation fulfills our pledge to rebuild the United States military." After extensive negotiations between Republicans and Democrats, the bill also provides $1.6 billion for physical barriers and 150 kilometers (93 miles) of a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, short of the $25 billion Trump requested for the project he repeatedly touted on the campaign trail while pledging Mexico would pick up the cost. Question: Why did the spending plan provide $1.6 million? Answer:
A:
output:
for physical barriers and a 93 mile wall at US-Mexico border