answer：First, I need to determine the initial amount of money Oliver has, which is 9.Next, I'll add the 5 he saved from his allowance to his initial amount, resulting in a total of 14.Then, I'll subtract the 4 he spent on a frisbee, leaving him with 10.After that, I'll subtract the 3 he spent on a puzzle, which brings his total down to 7.Finally, I'll add the 8 his friend gave him for his birthday, bringing his final amount to 15.

answer：To solve this problem, I need to determine which element in the given list has the highest absolute value. If there are both positive and negative elements with the same absolute value, I should choose the positive one. Finally, I will return the original value of the selected element.First, I'll list out the elements along with their absolute values:- -17.037 → 17.037- 38.047 → 38.047- -51.954 → 51.954- -56.997 → 56.997- 73.205 → 73.205- 41.636 → 41.636- -54.714 → 54.714- 53.856 → 53.856Next, I'll identify the maximum absolute value, which is 73.205. Since this value is already positive, I don't need to consider any negative counterparts with the same absolute value.Therefore, the element with the highest absolute value is 73.205.

answer：Okay, so I need to figure out who plays Spartacus in Spartacus: Blood and Sand based on the passage provided. Let me read the passage again to make sure I don't miss anything.The passage says: "Andy Whitfield (17 October 1971 -- 11 September 2011) was a Welsh actor. He was best known for his leading role in the Starz television series Spartacus: Blood and Sand."Alright, so the key points here are that Andy Whitfield was a Welsh actor, and he was best known for his leading role in Spartacus: Blood and Sand. The question is asking who plays Spartacus in that series.So, putting it together, the passage directly states that Andy Whitfield was the lead actor in Spartacus: Blood and Sand. Therefore, he must be the one who plays Spartacus.I don't think there's any ambiguity here. The passage clearly mentions his role as the lead in that specific series. There's no mention of any other actors taking over the role or anything like that, so I can confidently say that Andy Whitfield is the actor who plays Spartacus in Spartacus: Blood and Sand.Wait, but I remember hearing that Andy Whitfield passed away, and I think someone else took over his role in later seasons. But the question is specifically about Spartacus: Blood and Sand, which I believe was the first season. So, in that particular series, it's Andy Whitfield. The later seasons might have a different actor, but the question is about Blood and Sand, so the answer should be Andy Whitfield.Yeah, that makes sense. So, the answer is Andy Whitfield.

answer：Okay, so I'm trying to figure out whether the sentence "Hunger only exists in our minds and we do not really need food to survive." is factually correct. Let me break this down step by step.First, I know that hunger is a feeling we experience, right? It's that empty stomach feeling or the craving for food. But the sentence is saying that hunger is only in our minds, implying it's not a real physical need. That makes me think about what hunger actually is. From what I remember, hunger is a biological response. Our bodies need nutrients and energy to function, so when our bodies detect low energy levels, they send signals to the brain, which we perceive as hunger.So, if hunger is a biological response, then it's not just in our minds. It's a real signal that our bodies send to tell us to eat. That means the first part of the sentence, "Hunger only exists in our minds," might not be accurate because it's actually a physical sensation with a biological basis.Now, the second part of the sentence says, "we do not really need food to survive." That seems even more incorrect. I know that food provides essential nutrients, like carbohydrates, proteins, fats, vitamins, and minerals, which are necessary for our bodies to function properly. Without food, our bodies can't get the energy they need, and over time, this leads to malnutrition and eventually death. So, saying we don't need food to survive is definitely wrong.Putting it all together, the sentence is making two claims: one about hunger being only mental and another about not needing food. Both of these are factually incorrect because hunger is a physical response, and food is essential for survival. Therefore, the sentence isn't correct at all.I should also consider if there's any context where this statement could be true. Maybe in a metaphorical sense, but the question is about factual correctness, so metaphors don't apply here. In reality, both parts of the sentence are false.

answer：Okay, so I'm trying to figure out whether the hypothesis is entailed by the premise. The premise is "A blond woman on a cellphone looking at an advertisement." The hypothesis is "The woman is looking away from the ad." First, I need to understand what "entailed by" means. From what I remember, if the hypothesis is entailed by the premise, it means that if the premise is true, the hypothesis must also be true. So, I need to see if the premise necessarily leads to the hypothesis being true.Looking at the premise, it says the woman is looking at an advertisement. That seems pretty straightforward. She's actively looking at the ad. Now, the hypothesis says she's looking away from the ad. That seems contradictory because if she's looking at the ad, she can't be looking away from it at the same time.Wait, maybe I'm missing something. Could there be a situation where she's looking at the ad but also looking away? That doesn't make much sense. If she's looking at it, she's engaged with it, right? So, looking away would mean she's not looking at it anymore.Another angle: maybe the premise is just stating that she was looking at the ad, but the hypothesis is about a different moment. But the premise doesn't specify a time frame, so I think it's talking about the same moment. So, if she's looking at the ad, she's not looking away from it.I'm also considering if "looking at" and "looking away" can coexist, but I don't think so. They seem like opposites. So, if the premise says she's looking at the ad, the hypothesis that she's looking away can't be true at the same time.Therefore, the premise directly contradicts the hypothesis. So, the hypothesis is not entailed by the premise; in fact, it's the opposite.

answer：First, I need to determine the total number of hours Carrie worked. She worked 2 hours each day for 4 days, so that's 2 multiplied by 4, which equals 8 hours.Next, I'll calculate her total earnings by multiplying the number of hours she worked by her hourly rate. Carrie earned 22 per hour, so 8 hours multiplied by 22 equals 176.Then, I'll consider the cost of supplies, which was 54. To find the profit, I subtract the cost of supplies from her total earnings. So, 176 minus 54 equals 122.Therefore, Carrie earned a profit of 122 on the cake.