It's always interesting to read back on why people do things, especially people who end up making a career or a fortune out of the seemingly benign choices they make. Thelma Schoonmaker, the film editor whom my previous post was about was one of those people; she got into editing after seeing an ad in the New York Times. I'm in no way suggesting I'm going to make a fortune, nor that I'm a Thelma Schoonmaker in the making, but I certainly do make a lot of benign choices. Art blogging, for me, was one of those benign choices. I made the decision to start an art blog very randomly, so randomly I'm not even sure where the idea came from. At the time I had been studying a bachelor of psychology for about two years and found myself interested in the subject, but underwhelmed with the lack of creative ideas and media I was being exposed to. I'd always been interested in art and most creative mediums, often recording music or taking photographs on the side. But the pages and pages of white and black scientific journal articles must have got to me, because I found myself yearning for splashes of colour, moving imagery, challenging concepts and undefinable ideas. The next thing I knew I had started an art blog aptly titled: Artistic Expansion and I began spending hours a day searching through the internet for content, often finding my best pieces in the most random places, often not even defined intentionally as 'art'. Over the last two years I must have blogged hundreds of multi-coloured, multi-textured and multi-layered images, accumulated over 2000 followers and consumed more art than I ever had in my entire life. I find it interesting not because of it's success, but because before I started my art blog, I really had no idea how much I did or could love art and once I had made my art blog I couldn't imagine how I ever functioned without it. What does the author probably think about blogging? A. the author detests blogging B. not enough information C. the author enjoys blogging D. the author wants to quit blogging
C

(Question)
The White House has announced sanctions against 38 Russian individuals and companies, saying the United States is standing up to ongoing "malign activity" by the Russian government against Western democracies and around the world. At Friday's White House briefing, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the U.S. still wants to work with Russia. "Again, what we would like to see is the totality of the Russian behavior change. We want to continue having conversations and work forward to building a better relationship," Sanders said. The sanctions will be imposed on seven Russian oligarchs including Oleg Deripaska, an aluminum magnate and close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin and 12 companies they own or control. Seventeen senior Russian government officials, as well as a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its subsidiary, a Russian bank, also will be targeted. The group includes key members of Putin's inner circle. Those sanctioned will have their assets blocked in the U.S. and people in the U.S. are barred from doing business with them. Friday, a number of U.S. lawmakers and foreign policy experts welcomed the measure, saying the sanctions are overdue. Representative Adam Schiff of California, ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the move is the strongest action taken by the Trump administration to date for Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and "its murder of dissidents at home and abroad." "The sanctioning of oligarchs like Oleg Deripaska, who is linked to Paul Manafort, Alexander Torshin and Putin's son-in-law, will send a strong message to the Kremlin," Schiff said in a statement. Florida's Marco Rubio, a Republican senator and former presidential candidate, also welcomed Friday's announcement. "These new sanctions send a clear message to Vladimir Putin that the illegal occupation of Ukraine, support for war crimes [under Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime], efforts to undermine Western democracies, and... The White House briefing probably lasted: A. 1 day B. 30 minutes C. not enough information D. several hours
(Answer)
B

Ques: But corrected figures, provided by the U.S. military and published Tuesday by SIGAR, suggest that the actual decline was 17,980. Pentagon officials acknowledged originally providing inaccurate figures to SIGAR because of a failure "to account for the transfer of most of the Afghan Border Force from the Afghan National Police to the Afghan National Army," according to a SIGAR statement. According to the new figures, there were 313,728 members of the Afghan defense forces as of January 31, 2018. That compares to a total of 296,409, as previously reported. "SIGAR receives all of the (Afghan National Defense and Security Forces) personnel strength numbers published in the quarterly report from USFOR-A and has no means of independently verifying them," the statement added. The new figures still amount to a sharp decline. Afghan forces suffered unprecedented casualties in 2017, reportedly losing about 10,000 personnel, according to reports. SIGAR has been unable to publicly disclose the exact number of Afghan forces killed, because that information continues to be classified by Washington and Kabul. The violence has led to increased reports of Afghan military desertions, but that information too has been classified. Senior U.S. military officials repeatedly have acknowledged the nearly 17-year-old conflict remains a stalemate, even while touting some successes under the new strategy announced by President Donald Trump in August. Those success include the increasing capability of the Afghan military, which began conducting airstrikes two years ago. The Afghan air force carries out between four to 12 airstrikes every day, according to the Afghan Ministry of Defense. But the Kabul government controls just over half of the country's districts, SIGAR says. Trump's strategy appeared to commit the U.S. to Afghanistan indefinitely. It involves pressuring Pakistan to end its support for Afghan militants, supporting Kabul's effort to engage the Taliban in peace talks, and dropping more bombs on the country. The U.S.-led... What can be seen as committing the U.S. to Afghanistan indefinitely? A. Afghanistan's military. B. not enough information C. The Kabul government. D. Trump's strategy.
Ans:
D