In this task, you will be shown a passage. You need to write a fill-in-the-gap question based on your understanding of the events that might be inferred from the passage. Your question should be answerable based on the passage and only have one correct answer. Show the gap in your question with a _ .

[EX Q]: (CNN) If Iowa was a toss-up between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, then Nevada, home to another round of Democratic caucuses Saturday, could come down -- quite literally -- to the luck of the draw. Like Hawkeye State Democrats did on Feb. 1, the Nevada state party has sanctioned the use of a "game of chance" to break caucus deadlocks. This time around, though, the winner won't be calling a coin flip in the air, but pulling their fate from a deck of playing cards. "In these very limited circumstances where two or more presidential preference groups are tied for the loss or gain of a delegate, groups must each draw a single card from a deck of cards to break the tie," party officials explained in a memo provided to CNN. "The high card determines the winner, and aces are high."Iowa used a coin flip to decide winnersAces are high, according to the Nevada Democratic Party
[EX A]: RELATED: No, _ did not win Iowa because of a coin flip.

[EX Q]: Washington (CNN) One of the attorneys general that was threatening to challenge the Trump administration on DACA has backed off his threat, citing a "human element" in his calculation and urging Congress to act instead. The Tennessee attorney general had been part of a group of 10 states that were threatening the Trump administration to add the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to ongoing litigation in an unfriendly court if President Donald Trump doesn't sunset the program by September 5. That ultimatum was led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and was issued earlier this summer. But now, Herbert Slatery says he no longer will pursue that course of action.Tennessee had been one of 10 states threatening the Trump administrationThe letter encouraged bipartisan legislation in Congress
[EX A]: "There is a human element to this, however, that is not lost on me and should not be ignored," _ wrote.

[EX Q]: (CNN) In the 1971 free speech case, Cohen v. California, the Supreme Court said, "One man's vulgarity is another's lyric." That rings very true today. In 2015, I wrote an article with the headline "Decision on Asian-American band's name is wrong." That was after an early decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that denied the rock band, The Slants, a trademark registration because a bureaucrat said that it was "disparaging." Section 2(a) of the trademark act lets the government deny trademark protection to a mark that is "immoral," "scandalous" or "disparaging." I wrote a similar article about a case involving the Washington Redskins.Marc Randazza: Justices made the correct decision when declaring Section 2(a) of the trademark act unconstitutionalThe decision lets the band The Slants register its trademark, protects Americans' First Amendment free speech rights
[EX A]:
The _ has made an inspiring decision in The Slants case in that it protects all of our rights -- not just the rights of an eminently likable rock band and a somewhat less-than beloved football team.