(Q).
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... What is probably true about Ruth Bader Ginsburg? A. not enough information B. She is concerned about a constitutional crisis C. She is concerned about the right to vote D. She is against gerrymandering
(A).
D

(Q).
SEOUL The annual U.S.South Korea joint military exercises currently underway have historically been a very public demonstration of force intended, in part, to counter North Korea's aggressive nuclear and missile tests. But with looming diplomatic summits aimed at reaching a deal to end the North's nuclear program, media coverage of the drills has so far been limited. This week, the U.S. Second Infantry Division held a public tree planting ceremony at Camp Casey in South Korea, near the inter-Korean border. "It is my belief that this tree, like those that have come before it, shall symbolize the roots that bind us together, and to our past in an enduring way," said General Jon Howerton, the deputy commander of the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division, at the event. The journalists attending the tree ceremony were also permitted to watch a shooting competition to determine the best marksmen in the participating U.S. and South Korean divisions. The Camp Casey event was one of the few joint military training activities that news organizations have, so far, been allowed to cover, and it illustrates how the United States and South Korea are downplaying the offensive component of this year's combined exercises. "This is clearly in order to send a signal to North Korea that South Korea and the United States are not willing to escalate the situation any further," said Go Myong-Hyun, a North Korea analyst with the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in Seoul. This year's Foal Eagle and Key Resolve combined military exercises are similar in scale to past drills, with more than 23,000 U.S. troops and 300,000 South Korean forces engaging in joint battlefield maneuvers, and responding to computer-simulated attacks from North Korea. But the start of the drills was delayed this year at South Korea's request to set a peaceful tone for the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics in the South and to facilitate the North's participation in the games. When was a public tree planting ceremony held at Camp Casey? A. not enough information B. 2007 C. 2016 D. 2019
(A).
D

(Q).
To be honest, people don't usually ask me this. Instead, they want to know things like "How do I keep my mother from falling?" or "What should I do? My grandfather's been falling." After all, falls are a scary thing. Most people know that falls are dangerous for older adults. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that one in five falls causes a serious injury such as a broken bone or head injury. Fear of falling can also seriously affect an aging adult's quality of life and sadly, can keep a person from being active and thriving. So, many seniors and family caregivers are interested in fall prevention because the risks are so great. And the good news is that although it's not possible to prevent all falls, it almost always IS possible to take actions that will reduce the chance of a bad fall. If you want to learn more, you're in the right place. In this post, I'll cover: * How understanding why aging adults fall can help you keep an older parent or yourself safer, * Why personalized fall prevention plans work better than relying on general fall prevention tips, * The four-step process I use to help older adults prevent falls, * A practical example showing you how to use these steps to avoid falls yourself. First, understand why older people fall There are many reasons that aging adults fall. Most older people will be falling due to their own unique combination of reasons. So how, exactly, should YOU go about reducing fall risk? Now, you can and should try to implement the general tips that are often listed in most fall prevention resources: exercise, medication review with the doctor, vision checks, and home safety reviews. But if you really want to help an older loved one avoid falls, I recommend you learn to better understand why he or she, in particular, might fall. What does the author believe about the risk of falling? A. it can't be prevented B. not enough information C. it is overblown D. it is something to be taken seriously
(A).
D