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 is probably True about Modi? A. He wants to align India closely with Iran B. He wants India to remain non-aligned C. not enough information D. He wants more US aid
B

My father lost something valuable to him that didn't resurface for years after his death. My dad was a World War II veteran and an officer. All officers were issued the classic Ray Ban sunglasses with the wraparound wire rims. He wore them almost all the time for the next thirty years after the War, then one day in the 1970's, he misplaced them. He was heartbroken, crestfallen, that he lost something he cherished from his military servicethe symbolic military issue Bausch & Lombs coveted by every officer who served. I wanted so badly to be my dad's Hero. I overturned every piece of furniture in the house, rifled every dresser drawer, every nook and crannie, underneath beds, the garage, the yard, you name it. I was on a Mission. I wanted to walk up to him and say, beaming, Here Dad! I found your sunglasses! But alas, after several weeks, no success. I was crushed by my own failure. He passed away, and his possessions were divided among our family. Fast forward to a few years ago. My Cocker Spaniel was sniffing around in the bathroom, and a box fell out of the bathroom closet with a crash. I went to investigate and chide the dogwhen the first thing I saw on the bathroom floor next to the overturned box was the yellowed leather case, and his wire rim sunglasses. I picked it up, held it in my hand, and I, a grown man, immediately burst into tears, sobbing. Suddenly, I was nineteen again. My wife asked what was the matter, and I told her the whole story. I figured after his passing, his sunglasseswhich evidently were in the house the whole timewere probably tossed into one of many anonymous cardboard boxes, and I happened to be the one who carried off the box containing them. So here Dad! I found your sunglasses! I love you! Am I still your hero? How did his wife feel about him finding his Dad's Ray Ban glasses? A. awful B. happy and empathetic toward her husband C. not enough information D. disgusted
C

WASHINGTON They called themselves "crusaders" for a reason. The three Kansas militiamen planned to blow up an apartment complex housing Somali refugees during the 2016 presidential election, unleashing what one of them called "Crusades 2.0." But their plan was foiled after their arrest just weeks before the election, highlighting the changing enemy list of a movement founded on the back of anti-government activism a generation ago. And with the election of a president whose policies many militia members support, the urge to confront the government appears to have lost some of its urgency. Instead of railing at the government, they have in recent years turned their venom against new-found foes: Muslims, immigrants, the Antifa. "Some of the militia groups have been refocusing their attention on secondary enemies for the movement," said Mark Pitcavage, who researches extremism at the Anti-Defamation League civil rights group. Often lumped together with other right-wing groups, the anti-government movement comes in different forms. There are the "preppers," so called because they stockpile water, food and other essentials in preparation for civil unrest. There are the "survivalists," people who learn skills to "live off the land" in case of a disaster. There are "sovereign citizens" such as the suspect in the recent shooting at a Waffle House in Tennessee who are opposed to paying taxes and believe they should decide which laws to follow. And then there are the militiamen who conduct regular military-style training to resist a government they see as engaged in a global plot to take away their guns and constitutional rights. The modern militia movement dates back to a series of events in the early 1990s, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Among them: the 1992 election of Democratic President Bill Clinton and an FBI attack the following year on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, an event seen as "evidence of an out of control government willing to attack citizens." Under Clinton, the number... how many more attacks on immigrants in the US will there be over the next 4 years? A. 3 B. 4 C. 5 D. not enough information
D