text:
As anyone who has ever been caught in its gears can tell you, the great American outrage machine is a remarkable thing. One day you're having dinner with your family, imagining everything is fine. The next, your phone is exploding with calls from reporters.

They read you snippets from a press release written by Democratic Party operatives. They demand to know how you could possibly have said something so awful and offensive, and ask something like, "Do you have a statement on how immoral you are?" It's a bewildering moment, especially when the quotes in question are more than a decade old.

There's really not that much you can do to respond. It's pointless to try to explain how the words were spoken in jest or taken out of context, or in any case, bear no resemblance to what you actually think or would want for the country. None of that matters. Nobody cares. You know the role you're required to play. You are a sinner that needs the forgiveness of Twitter.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM TUCKER CARLSON.

So you issue a statement of deep contrition. You apologize profusely for your transgressions. You promise to be a better person going forward with the guidance of your contrition consultants. You send money to whatever organization that claims to represent the people you supposedly offended. Then you sit back, and brace for a wave of stories about your apology, all of which simply provide a pretext for attacking you again.

In the end, you get fired, you lose your job. Nobody defends you. Your neighbors avert their gaze as you pull into the driveway. You are ruined. And yet, no matter how bad it gets, no matter how despised and humiliated you may be, there is one thing you can never do -- one thing that is absolutely not allowed. You can never acknowledge the comic absurdity of the whole thing. You can never laugh in the face of the mob.

You must always pretend that the people yelling at you are somehow your moral superiors. You have to assume what they say they are mad about is what they are actually mad about. You have to take them at face value. You must pretend this is a debate about virtue and not about power. Your critics are arguing from principle, and not from partisanship.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE ENTIRE EPISODE.

No matter what they take from you in the end, you must continue to pretend that these things are true. You are bad, they are good. The system is on the level.

But what if we stopped pretending for a minute? What if we acknowledged what's actually going on?

One side is deadly serious. They believe that politics is war. They are not interested in abstractions or principles, rules or traditions. They seek power, and they intend to win it with whatever it takes. If that includes getting you fired or silencing you, or threatening your family at home, or throwing you in prison, okay. They know what their goal is. If you are in way, they will crush you.

What's interesting is how reliably the other side pretends that none of this is happening. Republicans in Washington do a fairly credible imitation of an opposition party. They still give speeches. They tweet quite a bit. They make certain noises about how liberals are bad.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP.

But on the deepest level, it's all a pose. In their minds, where it matters, Republican leaders are controlled by the left. They know exactly what they are allowed to say and believe. They know what the rules are. They may understand that those rules are written by the very people who seek their destruction, but they ruthlessly enforce them anyway.

Republicans in Washington police their own with a never-ending enthusiasm. Like trustees at a prison, they dutifully report back to the ward, hoping for perks. Nobody wants to be called names. Nobody wants to be Trump.

How many times have you seen it happen? Some conservative figure will say something stupid, or incomplete, or too far outside the bounds of received wisdom for the moral guardians of cable news? Twitter goes bonkers. The mob demands a response. Very often, the first people calling for the destruction of that person are Republican leaders. You saw it with the Covington Catholic High School kids. You see it all the time.

Kevin McCarthy spends half his day telling Republican members not to criticize progressive orthodoxy. Paul Ryan did the same before him. A couple of years ago, the entire Democratic Party decided to deny the biological reality of sex differences, an idea that is insane as it is dangerous. Republican leaders decided to not criticize them for it. They might get upset.

This is a system built on deceit and enforced silence. Hypocrisy is its hallmark. Yet in Washington, it's considered rude to ask questions about how exactly it works. Why are the people who considered Bill Clinton a hero lecturing me about sexism? How can the party that demands racial quotas denounce other people as racist? After a while, you begin to think that may be their criticisms aren't sincere. Maybe their moral puffery is a costume. Maybe the whole conversation is an absurd joke. Maybe we are falling for it.

  Since the day we went on the air, they [the left] have been working hard to kill this show. We haven't said much about it in public; it seemed too self- referential. The point of this show has never been us. But now, it's obvious to everybody. There is no pretending that it is not happening. It is happening, and so, going forward, we'll be covering their efforts to make us be quiet.

You sometimes hear modern progressives described as "New Puritans." That's a slur on colonial Americans. Whatever their flaws, the Puritans cared about the fate of the soul and the moral regeneration of their society. Those are not topics that interest progressives. They're too busy pushing late-term abortions and cross-dressing on fifth-graders.

These are the people who write our movies and our sitcoms. They are not shocked by naughty words. They just pretend to be when it's useful. It's been very useful lately.

The left's main goal, in case you haven't noticed, is controlling what you think. In order to do that, they have to control the information that you receive. Google and Facebook and Twitter are fully on board with that. They are happy to ban unapproved thoughts, and they don't apologize for it. Same with the other cable channels and virtually every major news outlet in this country.

One of the only places left in the United States where independent thoughts are allowed is right here at Fox News -- the opinion hours on this network. Just a few hours in a sea of television programming. It's not much, relatively speaking. For the left, it's unacceptable. It demands total conformity.

Since the day we went on the air, they've been working hard to kill this show. We haven't said much about it in public; it seemed too self- referential. The point of this show has never been us. But now, it's obvious to everybody. There is no pretending that it is not happening. It is happening, and so, going forward, we'll be covering their efforts to make us be quiet.

For now, though, just two points to leave you with. First, Fox News is behind us, as they have been since the very first day. Toughness is a rare quality in a TV network, and we are grateful for that. Second, we've always apologized when we are wrong and we will continue to do that. That's what decent people do -- they apologize.

But we will never bow to the mob -- ever. No matter what.

_Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on March 11, 2019._

question: What does the article say about Republicans?

answer: The author claims that Republicans are not interested in abstractions or principles, rules or traditions. Instead, they seek power and intend to win it with whatever it takes. If that includes getting you fired or silencing you, or threatening your family at home, or throwing you in prison, okay.

critique: They allegedly also enforce the liberal rules hypocritically

critique: The answer omits that Republicans are controlled by the left.

critique: The article does not say that Republicans are not interested in abstractions or principles, rules or traditions. Instead, they seek power and intend to win it with whatever it takes. If that includes getting you fired or silencing you, or threatening your family at home, or throwing you in prison, okay.

critique: The author does not claim that Republicans are not interested in abstractions or principles, rules or traditions. Instead, they seek power and intend to win it with whatever it takes. If that includes getting you fired or silencing you, or threatening your family at home, or throwing you in prison, okay.

critique: The answer should mention that Republicans are controlled by the left.

question: What does the article say about liberals?

answer: Liberals are the ones who are onto conservatives and the Republicans. They are dutiful in policing their own and ensuring that they toe the line of acceptable Progressive speech.

critique: "They are dutiful in policing their own and ensuring that they toe the line of acceptable Progressive speech." - this is incorrect. The part about policing their own is about Republicans.

critique: The answer should mention that the author believes that liberals are not actually concerned with morals.

critique: "They are dutiful in policing their own and ensuring that they toe the line of acceptable Progressive speech." - this is inaccurate and should be deleted.

critique: The answer should mention that liberals are the ones who are trying to silence conservatives.

critique: The answer should mention the hypocrisy of the left.

critique: Clarify that the answer details how it is likely the Left want to silence anyone who does not conform to Progressive rhetoric.

critique: The answer should mention that liberals are also the ones who are trying to silence conservatives.

question: How does the author characterize his side?

answer: The author characterizes his side as the side that is not serious.

critique: The author characterizes his side as the side that is not serious about winning.

critique: The author characterizes his side as the side that is serious.

critique: This answer is incorrect. The author characterizes his side as the side that is serious.

critique: "The author characterizes his side as the side that is not serious." - is incorrect. The author characterized his side as the side that is deadly serious.

critique: The answer is incorrect. The author characterizes his side as the side that is serious.

critique: The answer should note that the author characterizes his side as being the side that is not serious about winning and being destroyed.

critique: The author is just of their side (the "left" side) as the non-serious side in this.

question: What does the article say about the moral superiority of Republicans?

answer: According to the author, Republicans in Washington do a credible imitation of an opposition party. They still give speeches and make noises about how liberals are bad. However, on the deepest level, it's all a pose. The author believes that Republican leaders are controlled by the left and know exactly what they are allowed to say and believe.

critique: The first sentence is opinion, not fact. As such, it should be omitted.

critique: The answer should mention that the author believes the moral superiority is a facade.

critique: The answer does not mention that Republicans are hypocrites.

critique: The answer should mention that the author believes that the left is more serious about winning.

critique: The answer should mention that the author believes that Republicans are hypocrites.

critique: The answer should mention that the author believes the moral superiority of Republicans is a facade.

critique: This is a good summary but it's not really about Republicans being moral.


split: test

text:
A worn and somewhat muscular hand thrust from beneath the surface of a pale blue  mountain fed lake. Dripping with slimy seaweed and lake water the hand paddled furiously. Suddenly, the famous King Arthur shot out of the water, finding himself gasping for air. Arthur’s other hand emerged from the icy depths, paddling against its watery grave. King Arthur sighed a sigh of relief. He was finally home. Where were his people? Had it really been that long?

He spun around, trying to locate the shore. He finally homed in on some birds flying in wide circles high in the sky. Arthur paddled his legs and arms in their general direction, hoping for any sign of relief from this strenuous fight for life.

The swim was hard, but The King had nearly reached the border in which marked the end of this journey, and the beginning of the next. The shore. King Arthur waded through the last bit of water, too tired to swim. “Twilight?” The king spoke with a harsh British accent. It wasn’t really, the polluted air had made it seem darker than it really was.

The King found himself on a silky sand beach, the course rock he once knew had eroded into the perfect sand castle building material. “I have been away many years,” Arthur said in a hushed tone of grief and sorrow. “Whither will I go now?”

Arthur jumped with remembrance, almost forgetting a very important role in his life. He had first seen Excalibur when he was eleven, in a nook of a tree, sitting ever so mocking, telling him to take it and run. He didn’t. But Excalibur stopped at nothing. It came again. Arthur remembered the day vividly. A month day after his twelfth birthday. The same sword, this time screaming at him to take it. He did that time. His only sword and companion had fought many battles since then. Much bloodshed in the name of his people.

The King keeled down on one knee, he raised his hand, and with an inaudible command the sky was ripped apart, revealing a blinding light. Arthur was thrown down, unable to overcome the intense force that Excalibur brought. Then, as soon as it had started, it had ended. The only trace of it ever happening was the sword held in King Arthur's worn right hand.

Arthur walked forward, dripping with sweat, clutching Excalibur with all his might. Although there was nothing to be afraid of, not now. He saw no one and he wondered if his people, all Arthur had worked for, had dyed off. Conquered by another nation. The great and powerful king shuddered at the thought.

King Arthur came to a black strip of land with a yellow stripe down the middle, although he had no idea how they made it, he knew exactly what it was. A road. This was reassuring, to know that his people had progressed in technology. He wasn’t only talking about the road, but the machines that must have used it. Merlin had warned him of that much.

A small drug store, across the road, was the only thing Arthur saw. He was intimidated by the miniature structure. But he tried to believe his people would remember their king of old. Arthur walked in, a small bell sounded. The room was dimly lit, with a man in a black beanie and a gun pointed to the cashier. Arthur saw the look in the thieves eye’s, the most intense gaze of hatred. “Halt! In the name of King Arthur!” The man whirled around in fear and astonishment. He aimed the gun to Arthur's head and squeezed the trigger.

**If I receive enough feedback I would love to continue the adventures of King Arthur! Thanks in advance!**

title: [SP] King Arthur's Return

question: What does the story say about its setting?

answer: The story is set in a lake. King Arthur swims to the shore, where he finds himself on a silky sand beach. He walks on a black strip of land with a yellow stripe down the middle, which he thinks is a road. He sees a small drug store.

critique: The story does not specify where the lake is located.

critique: The drug store is irrelevant to the question.

critique: The response misses to mention the time period the story is set in.

critique: The setting also includes Merlin's warning about machines.

critique: The answer should mention the time period.

text: The answer fails to mention that Arthur believes he has returned to his land which would mean this might be the location of modern-day Camelot.

category: coverage

question: What does the story say about King Arthur's feelings?

answer: King Arthur is shown to be overwhelmed. He is panicking and grieved. He doesn't know what to do or where to go or do. He is homesick and looks around in despair, haunted by his memories of the old days when he ruled Camelot peacefully. King Arthur is also shown to be aging and becoming more self-aware and even a little sentimental.

critique: The story doesn't say much about King Arthur's feelings, and what it does say is deceptive. The king is meant to be panicky, so the lines about him being self-aware are confusing.

critique: The story doesn't mention that King Arthur is aging.

critique: The response includes extraneous information not useful for the task.

critique: There is no evidence that King Arthur is panicking and grieving.

critique: The response contains inaccurate information.

critique: "He is panicking and grieved." - this is incorrect because the story shows King Arthur being strong.

text: The text depicts Arthur as feeling disoriented by the modernity around him and how much things have changed.

question: What does the story say about battle?

answer: No answer

critique: The response is incorrect. The story has a lot of information about King Arthur and the battles he had fought in the name of his people.

critique: The response misses to provide an answer to the task.

critique: The story mentions several battles, including one with the thief.

critique: The response misses to provide an answer to the instruction in the task.

question: What does the story say about Arthur and Excalibur?

answer: King Arthur is on his way back home when he remembered that he had left his sword, Excalibur. He was eleven when he first saw the sword in a nook of a tree, telling him to take it and run. It came to him again a month after his twelfth birthday. It had screamed at him to take it that time. Excalibur was his only sword and companion for many years. It fought many battles for his people and for Arthur. Arthur used it to command the sky to be ripped apart and to reveal a blinding light. He was thrown down and wasn't able to overcome the intense force that Excalibur brought.

critique: "He was thrown down and wasn't able to overcome the intense force that Excalibur brought." - Arthur wasn't thrown down. It was by the intense magic of Excalibur.

critique: The response contains some inaccurate information.

critique: The answer should mention Arthur's final fate.

critique: The answer should mention Arthur's use of Excalibur to intimidate the robber.

critique: The response includes extraneous information not useful for the task.

critique: "In a nook of a tree, telling him to take it and run. It came to him again a month after his twelfth birthday. It had screamed at him to take it that time." - this is irrelevant to the question and should be removed.

text: It is incorrect that Arthur used the sword to command the sky to open; he didn't have the sword until after the sky opened. The answer should include that Arthur has the sword after he's thrown down and takes it with him.

category: other

category_text: Accuracy and Coverage


text:
The rules were simple, but the game itself impacts a lot thought. I have played this game with lots of people. I remember my first time. I told him, ‘here are the cards. There are five of them.’

The idea of the game is to have a card with a high number, but as you turn over a new card, you must discard the previous one. I tell him that every time I’ve showed someone else this game, they mostly make the same mistakes. I turn over the first card and reveal the very first number: [76]. When I first played even I thought, ‘is it out of a hundred?’ If it were out of a hundred, everyone would stick with the first card. But what if it were out of a thousand, or a million? It’s the uncertainty that makes people pick a second card. If they stuck with just seventy-six, and found out that the next card was in the thousands, they’d kick themselves.

Pete asked, “another card please?” Perhaps it was my long hair, but he wasn’t paying attention to me when I boldly said that almost everyone makes the same mistakes. The next card shows: [32]. The second card is about half the first value, but just below. People still think that it could possibly be out of a much larger number, and no matter what, thirty-two appears to be a scam. Without much delay, “another.”

I like to think that these cards represent opportunities in life. No one wants to look like a fool and stick with something when they don’t know its relative value. You’re offered five cards in this game, and they could hold any number, why stick with the first one? The next card reveals the number: [1]. “What? That’s horrible, I got the lowest number!” With two cards left, Pete’s next choice was predictable.

People are given first opportunities in many aspects of life. Whether it’s a job or love, people always wonder if there’s a better one out there. With no ability to compare, we are unable to decide if something is worth committing to. When Pete drew the number one, he felt bad for not sticking with either of the first two cards. Like a homeless person, he appreciates whatever he had before much more so.

Obviously the seventy-six would be most ideal, but normally if people are given the choice to go back to thirty-two or draw a new card, some would go back. “Well there’s nothing lower than one… I may as well turn over a new card. If it’s anywhere near around seventy-six I’m sticking with that.” By this point his hope for a thousand or maybe a million is gone, he now appreciates what he was given before. I turn over the new card, knowing what was coming. It’s never what people expect.

The new card shows: [0.01]. Pete’s assumption that one was the lowest number was a common mistake. Before he thought that things couldn’t be worse. While it would be nice if the next card were a million, or even just anything close to thirty, it really doesn’t matter anymore, he would accept a two. People with big dreams are unable to appreciate what they have. Why shouldn’t a child hope to be a millionaire or marry the most beautiful girl in the world? What is wrong with hoping for the best, and giving up on what you have to make room for something better? To Pete, seventy-six is now a large number, whereas before he doubted if it was even a fraction of the other cards held.

“I really should have stuck with seventy-six!” Pete laughs, as I smile. Perhaps this was all a lesson? Perhaps all it was for him to understand his mistakes, learn to appreciate what he’s given, and now he’ll be rewarded for that. Whether or not life treats him to a larger opportunity, he would walk away from this with a lesson learnt. Without waiting for him, I give him the final card. It’s blank.

I hope Pete, whoever he is, takes from this game a valuable lesson. Whether wealthy or poor, I hope he appreciates what he has. In the struggle to become better versions of ourselves, we put ourselves at risk of loss. Some would argue that, so long as we have our health it’s okay, that everything else is superficial; why not take the risk? But the fact is that we will only feel bad if we give up something we once had, not what we could have had. I tell Pete to enjoy the rest of his time at the fair, and give a bow to say goodbye.

When I looked up, he was gone. He turned over the card that had nothing on it, so as I packed them up I collected all of the other cards first. I put them face down over the fifth card to put it away in the small box they came in. But before I do, I glanced at the bottom of the fifth card. Seventy-six was written in ink.

read more: www.mostthings.net

title: [MF] Five Cards

question: Explain how the card turned from blank to displaying the numbers "76".

answer: The narrator placed the cards face down over the blank card and turned them over one by one. The narrator saw the number 76 on the bottom of the card.

critique: The narrator didn't place the cards face down over the blank card.

critique: This answer is incorrect in different ways. The card fell from the box and showed the number without the narrator turning them over.

critique: The narrator doesn't place the cards face down over the blank card.

critique: The narrator doesn't turn over the cards.

critique: The narrator did not place the cards face down over the blank card and turn them over one by one.

critique: The narrator did not place the cards face down over the blank card.

text: The answer should mention that the story implies that Pete wrote the number on the card.

category: accuracy

question: Summarize the moral of the story.

answer: The moral of the story is that we should not give up on what we have to make room for something better. The narrator tells Pete to enjoy the rest of the fair and bow to say goodbye. Pete is gone with nothing, but the narrator has a feeling that he learned his lesson. Pete would have appreciated the things he had before much more. The narrator hopes Pete takes the valuable lesson with him.

critique: The narrator doesn't teach Pete a lesson, but Pete learns a lesson.

critique: The narrator does not give Pete anything.

critique: The narrator doesn't tell Pete to enjoy the rest of the fair and bow to say goodbye.

critique: The narrator doesn't tell Pete to enjoy the rest of the fair.

question: Summarize what the narrator has to say about opportunities.

answer: The narrator says that people are given opportunities in life, whether it's a job or love. People always wonder if there's a better one out there. The narrator says that people are given five cards, and they could hold any number. The narrator says that people with big dreams are unable to appreciate what they have.

critique: The model says the narrator says people with big dreams are unable to appreciate what they have but it is people with big dreams that are unable to appreciate what they have, which should be corrected.

critique: The narrator is not the one who says that people with big dreams are unable to appreciate what they have.

critique: The narrator does not say that people are given five cards, and they could hold any number.

critique: The narrator says that people are given opportunities in life, whether it's a job or love. People always wonder if there's a better one out there. The narrator says that people are given five cards, and they could hold any number. The narrator says that people with big dreams are unable to appreciate what they have.

critique: The narrator doesn't say "five cards," but "five opportunities."

critique: The narrator says that people are given five cards, and they could hold any number. The narrator says that people with big dreams are unable to appreciate what they have.

text: The line about the five cards is not relevant.

category: coherence


text:
[Betsy DeVos and Omarosa Manigault Newman are pictured. | AP Photo]

Omarosa Manigault Newman trashes Education Secretary Betsy DeVos throughout her book and calls the Trump Cabinet official "woefully inadequate and not equipped for her job." | Andrew Harnik/AP Photo

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos allegedly said the students who booed her May 2017 commencement speech at a historically black college didn't have the "capacity to understand" what she wants to accomplish, according to the tell-all book by former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman.

Manigault Newman describes DeVos' comments during a conversation with her after the May address at Florida's Bethune-Cookman University as "meaning, all those black students were too stupid to understand her agenda."

Manigault Newman trashes DeVos throughout the book and calls her "woefully inadequate and not equipped for her job." She alleges President Donald Trump referred to the education secretary as "Ditzy DeVos" and promised to "get rid of her" after the Bethune-Cookman event.

In the book, "Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House," Manigault Newman also blames DeVos for confusion around an annual conference in Washington, D.C., for historically black colleges and universities, which the administration downsized in September 2017. She writes that DeVos was the "number one driver for cancellation."

"This disgraced former White House employee is peddling lies for profit. The book is a joke as are the false claims she’s making about Secretary DeVos," said Liz Hill, press secretary to DeVos.

The White House has pushed back strongly against the book, and the president has labeled Manigault Newman "wacky," "deranged" and a "dog" in posts to his Twitter account this week. Trump's presidential campaign has also filed for arbitration proceedings against her.

The Trump administration — and DeVos in particular — have had a rocky relationship with black colleges. DeVos famously issued a statement equating the history of the schools — founded during an era of racial segregation — to “school choice” policies. She later apologized.

Manigault Newman, an HBCU graduate who spearheaded the Trump administration's outreach to those schools, was herself a polarizing figure in that role.

But she says in her book that she was the one who drove Trump to sign a much-ballyhooed executive order designed to woo the schools. That order said his administration would move an initiative aimed at boosting HBCUs from the Education Department to the White House — a move that many college leaders had hoped would give them a direct line to the president.

Manigault Newman writes that she tried to forge a relationship with DeVos — though she said she sat near DeVos in Cabinet meetings and determined "there is no way she should be the secretary of education" — because Manigault Newman "was on a mission for increased education funding for HBCUs and wasn't ready to give up on involving the secretary of education in the pursuit."

She traveled with DeVos to Daytona Beach, Florida, for the Bethune-Cookman commencement address, despite writing that it was clear "[no] one wanted DeVos to speak at their school, and her visits were written off as photo ops only."

The trip did not go well, in Manigault Newman's telling.

"Betsy got up onstage to give her speech and was immediately, loudly booed by the entire audience," Manigault Newman writes. "Graduating students and their families stood up and turned their backs on her. I was seated onstage watching this travesty unfold. When the booing started, she should have wrapped it up, but she went on and on for twenty minutes, talking over the booing. I was thinking, _It’s not about you! Abandon your full speech! Adjust, woman!_" Manigault Newman described it as "painful to experience."

After the speech, Manigault Newman writes that she asked DeVos how she thought it went, to which she says DeVos responded, "I did great!"

"I must have looked stunned," she writes. Then DeVos allegedly added: “They don’t get it. They don’t have the capacity to understand what we’re trying to accomplish.”

"Meaning, all those black students were too stupid to understand her agenda," Manigault Newman writes.

Manigault Newman says she told DeVos, “Oh, no, Madam Secretary. They get it. They get it, and they aren’t happy about you or your goals.”

The next day, Manigault Newman writes, she was ditched at the hotel by DeVos, who allegedly told her, "sorry, we had to leave early. Change of plans. Take an Uber.”

Manigault Newman says she returned to D.C. and complained directly to Trump, who, she says, "shook his head in disgust" and said, “She is Ditzy DeVos, what do you expect? In a very short period of time, I will get rid of her. Believe me, believe me.”

Later in the book, Manigault Newman claims that DeVos "went to John Kelly and asked him to force me to cancel" the annual HBCU conference, referring to Trump's chief of staff.

The administration was under pressure from college leaders and some members of Congress to delay it after Trump's response to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.

But Manigault Newman writes that she was determined that it go on. She convinced Kelly to let it continue, but "that if it failed, I would own it solely."

"I heard from a member of the HBCU staff that DeVos was livid that the event was moving forward," she writes. "A week after my meeting with General Kelly, Betsy DeVos tried to shut down the event by sending out a blast notice that it was off, and then she canceled the contract with the conference’s hotel. By doing so, she cost the US government $75,000 in cancellation fees. She did not care!"

Manigault Newman claims she turned to Trump for help and he supported her. The administration hosted a much smaller event at the White House, organized by Manigault Newman. But she claims that "Secretary DeVos refused to give opening remarks" at the event.

"I turned to the president again," Manigault Newman wrote. "As a result, the head of Cabinet Affairs, Bill McGinley, told her she had to give the opening remarks."

question: Summarize Omarosa Manigault Newman's relationship with Betsy DeVos.

answer: Omarosa Manigault Newman and Betsy DeVos had a rocky relationship. Manigault Newman was the one who pushed Trump to sign an executive order designed to woo historically black colleges and universities. Manigault Newman claims that DeVos tried to cancel the annual HBCU conference. Manigault Newman says that DeVos was the "number one driver for cancellation."

critique: The response includes extraneous information not useful for the task.

text: It's omitted that Manigault Newman dislikes DeVos and trashes her throughout her book.

question: Summarize how Betsy DeVos handled the annual HBCU conference.

answer: Betsy DeVos tried to cancel the annual HBCU conference after Trump's response to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia. Omarosa Manigault Newman convinced John Kelly to let the conference go on. DeVos tried to cancel the contract with the conference's hotel, costing the US government $75,000 in cancellation fees. She did not care.

critique: It's omitted that DeVos refused to give opening remarks at the new, smaller event.

critique: The response should include that DeVos refused to give opening remarks at the conference.

question: Summarize Omarosa Manigault Newman's relationship with Trump.

answer: Omarosa Manigault Newman was a polarizing figure in her role as the Trump administration's outreach to historically black colleges and universities. She was a graduate of an HBCU and was determined to increase funding for HBCUs. She claims that she was the one who drove Trump to sign an executive order designed to woo HBCUs. She also claims that Trump supported her when she turned to him for help after DeVos tried to shut down an HBCU conference.

critique: "She claims that she was the one who drove Trump to sign an executive order designed to woo HBCUs." - this is incorrect. She does not claim that she was the one who drove Trump to sign the executive order. She says she was on a mission for increased funding for HBCUs and was determined to involve DeVos in the pursuit.

critique: The answer should mention that Trump fired her.

text: The second sentence is irrelevant and should be omitted.

question: What does the text say about Betsy DeVos' attitude towards HBCUs.

answer: She was supposedly upset at a conference where HBCU students took hostiles about her, booing her for a lengthy speech. When the students mentioned how she promoted "school choice" as a "solution" of how to get funding for HBCUs, she had to clarify that they were allowed to stay as public schools and not be kicked out like before. DeVos has since apologized for her remarks and sought to reconnect with HBCU.

critique: The response inaccurately mentions that DeVos was upset at a conference where HBCU students took hostiles about her. The students booed her for a lengthy speech.

text: The second sentence isn't said in the text and should be omitted.