SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA The conservative leader of South Korea's main opposition party on Thursday spoke out against the upcoming U.S.North Korea summit. He also voiced concern that political considerations are driving U.S. President Donald Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in to compromise joint security for more false denuclearization promises from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. "I am rather pessimistic about whether this negotiation will work out well or not. The only means for North Korea to maintain its regime is its nuclear program. The moment that North Korea gives up its nuclear program, and the moment it opens up to reform, the Kim Jong Un regime will collapse," said Hong Joon-pyo, the chairman of the Liberty Korea Party. On June 12, Trump and Kim will meet in Singapore to try to reach an agreement to end the North's threatening nuclear weapons program in exchange for economic incentives and security guarantees that could include a formal peace treaty to replace the armistice that has been enforced since the end of the Korean War in 1953. Many South Korean conservatives had voiced strong support for Trump's "maximum pressure" polices to force Pyongyang to unilaterally give up its nuclear weapons through tough international sanctions in place that ban 90 percent of the country's trade, and the threat of military action. But they have been troubled by recent statements coming from the Trump administration indicating the United States may be willing to soften its demands for the complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement (CVID) of the North's nuclear program before offering any sanctions relief. Hong is worried that Trump may seek a deal that would quickly end the North's intercontinental ballistic missile program that directly threatens the U.S., and leave the regional nuclear threat to be resolved later. Trump seems overly intent to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough, Hong said, to shift the media focus away from the ongoing special prosecutor investigation he is facing over Russia's... According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: What have many South Korean conservatives voiced much support for with regards to Trump? Options: - not enough information - maximum pressure policies that force Pyongyang to give up nuclear weapons - policies that decrease tariffs with Asian countries - policies increasing immigration from Asian countries
maximum pressure policies that force Pyongyang to give up nuclear weapons

(Question)
Years back, following a transition inside a large company where many people got fired and moved around, the decision was made to give the remaining people more work. Now, let me pause here, when I say, "more work" did not mean more of the existing work they already did. "More work" did not mean work of what they already knew, or signed up for when they were hired. More work meant incorporating a completely different role. For me, I'm a programmer. And "management" decided they wanted programmers to also do BA work. Now, mind you, nowhere on my employment contract does it state I'd have to take a BA role. And nowhere on my employment contract did it state taking a BA role would also require me doing all of my programming work. So, after being pushed a few times to attend BA meetings, I got fed up. So I pulled my manager into a meeting and explained this to him. I said, you have two choices: I do two roles, BA and programmer, and I get a new salary to account for the role. When he asked how much, I said, take my salary and multiply by 1.6. Option 2, I go back to programming, and you never pull me into a meeting again on BA work. It's not what you hired me for, and it's not what you pay me for. When my boss replied, "Our company is not in the position to pay for two roles", I told him, then it sounds like Option 2. And by the way, I don't ever want to have this discussion again. If you want Superman performance, you cannot pay Clark Kent wages. 1 year passed and I was never bothered again about BA roles. Takeaways: Middle managers are one step above one-celled organisms. They can, and will try to get you to do non-role work, with no intention of ever paying you more. They key is to cut it off at the pass. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: When was the transition where many of John's colleagues got fired and moved around? Options: - In a dream he had - not enough information - 1981 - Years back
(Answer)
Years back

I was about 14 and lived near a large tract of undeveloped land where people would go and park to fool around. There was a dirt road through the tract, but further down, it crossed two huge concrete pipes. The dirt was washed out between them, and the deep gulch made it impossible to cross in a car. Sometimes, eight or ten of us would go looking for parked cars. If we found one or more, we would go move this incredibly heavy stump onto the road and lay a telephone pole across it. It took all of us and it was incredibly heavy. It was impossible to drive around it because of the ditches and there was no way two or three people could move it. We'd go back to the car and set off a big string of fire crackers or shake the cat and slap on it and run like crazy. We'd watch from the woods as they drove like heck and come to a screeching stop at our roadblock. The guy would get out and try to lift the pole. Never happen. Then the car would drive the other way. That wouldn't happen because of the pipes. We'd go home leaving them in there. This was before cell phones, and it was miles to a pay phone. We'd go back the next day and find the stump and pole moved. We thought it was real funny until one night we set it up and beat on the trunk of a car. A couple was inside, getting it on. We hadn't noticed a guy sitting on the hood with a bottle of booze and a pistol. As we ran, he was shooting and we could hear bullets going through the underbrush. No one was hit, thank goodness. That was the end of that stunt. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: Who engaged in this occasional stunt? Options: - A group of eight or ten youths - The man with the gun - The 14-year-old boy - not enough information
A group of eight or ten youths