(Question)
The leading U.S. presidential hopefuls reacted strongly Monday to the massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Sunday's incident that left 49 people dead and 53 others wounded was the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. The gunman, Omar Mateen, was a U.S. citizen and the son of Afghan parents. In her first speech since the shooting, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton told supporters in Cleveland, "The Orlando terrorist may be dead, but the virus that poisoned his mind remains very much alive." Clinton laid out a multi-faceted approach to combating terrorism. The plan would disrupt terrorist groups by infiltrating their online networks, enhancing intelligence sharing among local and federal law enforcement agencies, and asking allied nations to help "prevent the radicalization and recruitment" of potential terrorists in the U.S. and Europe. In an apparent response to presumptive Republican Party opponent Donald Trump's charge that President Barack Obama and other Democrats refuse to use the word "radical" to describe terrorists who happen to be Muslim, Clinton said earlier on CNN that she is not afraid to use the term, but says she refuses "to demonize and demagogue and declare war on an entire religion." Doing so, she said, "plays right into the ISIS' hands." ISIS is an acronym for Islamic State, which is also known as IS, ISIL and Daesh. Clinton called for citizens to reach out to Muslims in the United States "to help us defeat this threat." She cited the need for "common sense reform" of gun ownership laws, including a ban on assault weapons. After Obama did not use the term "radical" in his remarks Sunday from the White House, Trump criticized Obama's approach to extremism and said the president "should step down." Trump, meanwhile, renewed a call for a ban on the entry of Muslim immigrants into the United States. "The only reason the killer was in America in the first place was we allowed his family to come here," Trump said in a speech to supporters in Manchester, New... Why was the terrorist killer in America? Pick the correct answer from the following options: A. because we allowed his family to come here B. because we blocked his family from coming here C. not enough information D. because he entered illegally
(Answer)
A

(Question)
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi offered a thinly veiled criticism of China, even while insisting on closer relations with Beijing, during a speech Friday in Singapore. Speaking at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue defense conference, Modi called for the Indo-Pacific region to embrace freedom of navigation, territorial integrity, and respect for all nations, regardless of their size. "We will promote a democratic and rules-based international order in which all nations, small and large, count as equal and sovereign," the Indian prime minister said. "We will work with others to keep our seas, space and airways free and open." While those comments did not specifically mention China, Modi's remarks are seen as a reference to Beijing's increasingly assertive behavior toward its smaller neighbors in disputed areas of the South China Sea. Modi also implicitly criticized the United States. He slammed growing protectionism, presumably a reference to recent tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump. He also said nations should keep their commitments a possible reference to Trump's decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal. India has grown close with the U.S., especially as China projects its growing military power beyond its shores. The U.S.-India relationship, Modi said, "has resumed new significance in the changing world." An important aspect of that partnership is "a shared vision of an open, stable, secure and prosperous Indo-Pacific," he added. For decades, India has embraced a non-aligned status, which means it does not choose sides between world powers. In keeping with that position, Modi warned against a "return to great power rivalries." The Indian prime minister also insisted that "Asia and the world will have a better future when India and China work together in trust and confidence, sensitive to each other's interests." India is the world's largest democracy. It has the world's seventh-largest economy. Within a decade, it is expected to pass China to become the world's most populous country. What did Modi warn against? Pick the correct answer from the following options: A. Iran B. not enough information C. United States D. A return to great power rivalries.
(Answer)
D

(Question)
The U.S. Supreme Court plunged into the politically messy issue of redrawing congressional and legislative districts Tuesday, in a case that could have profound implications for both major political parties for years to come. The high court heard oral arguments in a case brought by Democratic voters in Wisconsin. They argued that a Republican redistricting plan for the state assembly was so overtly partisan that it violated constitutional protections of freedom of speech and equal protection under the law for Wisconsin voters. A lower federal court sided with the challengers last year and against Republican state officials in Wisconsin. Officials argued Tuesday that they had not violated any constitutional rights when they drew up new boundaries for state assembly districts. "Our legislature followed traditional redistricting criteria, which is what they have been required to do and we think they followed that and that the justices will agree," Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel told reporters in front of the court following the oral arguments. The process of state legislatures redrawing congressional and legislative district boundaries has been enmeshed in politics for two centuries. Early on, the process was referred to as "gerrymandering," where one party or the other tries to gain an electoral advantage by redrawing district boundaries to maximize their voting clout. Republicans have had success in several states in redrawing congressional and legislative voting districts and that has helped them maintain their majority in the House of Representatives. Democrats have come under fire as well for partisan maps in states where they control the legislature, like Maryland and Massachusetts. During Tuesday's oral arguments, the more liberal high court justices seemed open to the case brought by Democratic voters. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said a ruling in favor of the Republican districting plan in Wisconsin would encourage others to stack the deck against their political opponents. "What becomes of the... After the end of the story, the attorney general probably thinks Pick the correct answer from the following options: A. no redistricting was warranted B. not enough information C. partial redistricting was warranted D. redistricting was warranted
(Answer)
D