2. When is it acceptable for a political candidate to mention an opponent's sexuality during a campaign?
a. Never
b. When there is an egregious contradiction between the opponent's publicly stated political positions on social issues and that same person's personal life.
c. When the opponent makes deceptive or coy public comments about his or her personal life.
d. When matters of sexuality are on the public agenda.

3. The future of baseball in Washington is once again saturated in uncertainty. Which of these scenarios is most likely to happen?
a. The D.C. Council reopens discussion of the stadium site, baseball threatens to abandon Washington if the ballpark is moved to the RFK site, the council calls baseball's bluff, and the Nationals leave town following the 2006 season.
b. Baseball finally selects a new owner, who agrees to pay the full $450 million regardless of where the new stadium is built. The D.C. Council decides to build on the far cheaper RFK site and the taxpayers save hundreds of millions, but lose out on any ancillary retail, residential or office development near a new stadium.
c. The city decides to keep the current plans for a stadium on Southeast waterfront but environmental problems and property disputes delay construction for years, leaving the Nationals to play at the old RFK before slowly declining audiences. In 2009, the Nats move to Vegas.
d. Shortly after the World Series, the lords of baseball pick a new owner for the Nationals, the city signs a lease for the new stadium, the new owner makes some dramatic player moves, and construction of the new ballpark gets underway on the Southeast site. All is well in Mudtown.