Problem: OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- defeat the Republicans
- defeat the Democrats
- side with no one
Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Young undocumented immigrants seeking permanent status in the United States received an unexpected boost Thursday on Capitol Hill as a small group of House Republicans mounted a last-minute effort to bring up an immigration vote in Congress. The group of eight Republicans some freed from political considerations by upcoming retirements and others facing tough re-elections races defied their own party leadership, quickly persuading 10 more Republicans to sign on to a petition that would force debate on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. With all 193 Democrats expected to sign on, Republicans will have to persuade just seven more members of their own party to join the petition to trigger a vote on several immigration bills on the House floor. But Republican leadership said the effort would be wasted if the end result is a presidential veto. "I think it's important for us to come up with a solution that the president can support," House Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters Thursday. These types of petitions are rare and seen as a threat to leadership's ability to direct legislative action. "It's better to use the legislative process," Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters Wednesday. But that argument appears to be losing sway with House members who see an opportunity for legislative action in a mid-term election year. The growing group of House Republicans are joining Democratic colleagues who have long criticized Ryan for not bringing immigration bills up for a vote. "This is about making sure we're not consolidating power in the White House," said Representative Mia Love, a Republican from Utah and one of the first lawmakers to sign petition. The immigration issue had all but died after an effort to pass a DACA fix collapsed in the U.S. Senate earlier this year. The program has been the focus of fierce negotiations on Capitol Hill since last September, when President Donald Trump announced he was ending the 2012 Obama-era program and called for a legislative fix. Question: Ryan probably believes that he should: Answer:
Answer: defeat the Democrats
Problem: OPTIONS:
- President Trump and Kim Jong Un has had tensions and have traded insults between each other in the past.
- not enough information
- The meeting will not yet call for nuclear dismantlement of either nations involved.
- North Korea has been shown to be unreliable in keeping the promises it has agreed to.
Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA Some people in Seoul on Tuesday said they are happy just to see U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un talking to each other rather than trading threats of war. "I am very happy because it is an epoch breakthrough after 70 years of division," said Lee Jun-keun, a salesman working for a retail business. Last year the two leaders traded insults, with Trump calling Kim "rocket man," and the North Korean leader calling the U.S. president a "dotard," and they both threatened military action as tension rose over the North's accelerated weapons testing to develop an operational nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile capability. But after North Korea successfully test-fired missiles it claimed could carry nuclear warheads capable of reaching the United States, Pyongyang pivoted to diplomacy by suspending further provocations and indicating a willingness to engage in denuclearization talks. Trump surprised allies and adversaries alike by immediately agreeing to meet with Kim, long before the specifics of a nuclear deal could be negotiated. Tuesday's first meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader produced a broad declaration to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons and develop a peace treaty to end the long standing hostiles between the U.S. and North Korea. Trump called the agreement "very comprehensive," but it will be left to negotiators to later resolve differences between Washington's call for complete and verifiable nuclear dismantlement before any sanctions relief is provided, and Pyongyang's demand that concessions be linked to incremental progress. Some in South Korea remain skeptical that the broad commitment reached at the U.S.-North Korean summit in Singapore will lead to North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program. "North Korea did not keep its promise in the past, even after signing the agreement. This is what I am disappointed and doubtful about," said Shim Jae-yeon, a housewife who lives in Seoul. Others... Question: Why would people be skeptical of the meeting between North Korea and the US? Answer:
Answer: North Korea has been shown to be unreliable in keeping the promises it has agreed to.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- They wanted to eat more during the day
- They were willing to see if it would help them lose weight
- They didn't think it would be effective
Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Eating less food at night time is sensible advice for someone trying to lose weight. The reason often given is that if eat you too much food at night, the body will store all those excess kilojoules as fat because we're inactive until the next day. The reason sounds plausible, but if it was one hundred percent true then world hunger could be solved by just feeding people one meal at night time. What really matters is how much is eaten over days and weeks for weight gain or weight loss, not so much when it is eaten. There is merit though in advice to eat less at night time as it can help a person to cut back on the total quantity of food eaten. Eating lots of food in the evening can also be a marker for unhealthy dietary habits, especially if much of that extra food is going to fuel couch surfing exploits. So even though advice to eat less at night time seems logical, it hasn't actually been well tested by science to see how effective it can be for losing weight. Filling this gap, a short-term study involving 29 healthy men looked at how 2 weeks of restricted night time eating fared against 2 weeks of 'normal' evening eating. Advice on restricting night eating was very clear: avoid any food or drink containing kilojoules between the hours of 7 pm and 6 am the next morning. No other changes to the participants' diet or lifestyle was required so each person was free to eat whatever they wished during the day time hours until early evening. Twenty seven of the twenty nine people complied with following this advice for 2 weeks as well as the 2 week control period. Eating at night a waistline hazard So did people eat less when restricting night time eating? Yes, equal to 1000 kilojoules (about 250 Calories) per day less than during their normal eating pattern. This small energy difference was enough to see the men lose 0.4 kg over the 2 week restriction period, and gain 0.6 kg over the 2 week control period. Question: How does the participants probably feel about the study they went into? Answer:
Answer:
They were willing to see if it would help them lose weight