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. How long did the ceremony last? - 3 hours - An hour - not enough information - 2 hours
A: An hour

Q: U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator Lindsey Graham have joined a growing chorus of Republican leaders to disavow comments by presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump about the Mexican heritage of a judge in a class-action lawsuit against Trump University. Questioned Tuesday about Trump's comments, Ryan said "I regret those comments he made. Claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of racism." But he did not retract his endorsement of Trump, made last week, and he said he does not believe Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton is "the answer." Ryan made his comments during an appearance at a women's shelter in Washington, D.C. In a New York Times interview, Graham, also a former presidential candidate, said Trump's remarks were "the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy," referring to the ultra-conservative senator of the 1950s who fueled fears of widespread communist subversion in the United States. Graham also suggested that Republicans who have endorsed Trump reconsider their choice. "If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it," he said. The backlash appears to be mounting against the candidate, who has repeatedly said he believes U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case charging Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the Midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Sasse was joined Monday by two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' After the end of this story, Trump apologized for: - not thinking while he was talking - making a true statement - not enough information - making a racist remark
A: making a racist remark

Q: Following up from my recent blog post explaining why dietary supplements offer few benefits for most people, new research has found that people who take a mineral supplement actually consume more minerals from their normal diet than non-supplement users. The notion of the 'worried well' is certainly alive and kicking. Vitamin and mineral supplements are big business. Reported figures in Australia suggest that 27% of women and 15% of men take some form of supplement with vitamin C, B complex, multivitamins, vitamin E and calcium all being popular choices. Contrary to the rationale for needing supplements in the first place, people who take supplements are more likely to be healthier than people who don't take supplements. Supplement users also tend to be leaner, smoke less, exercise more, and eat more fruit and vegetables. While it may seem obvious that people who take supplements likely consume more nutrients from their regular diet to start with, this hasn't been well studied in large population groups. Using data from a nationally representative government health survey, researchers from the United States looked at the mineral intake from food and supplements of over 8000 men and women between 2003 and 2006. The results were clear cut: people taking mineral supplements were consuming more minerals from their normal diet than those who didn't take supplements. The observation was even stronger in women than in men. The eight most popular mineral supplements taken were calcium, iron, magnesium, zinc, phosphorus, copper, potassium and selenium. Proving that it is possible to have too much of a good thing, supplement users were more likely to be exceeding the recommended upper level of intake for magnesium, zinc, iron and calcium. For someone who believes that they are reasonably healthy and are conscious of what they eat most of the time, taking a mineral supplement 'just in case' offers little to no benefit. How long did the study probably last? - 3 years - 1 month - several weeks - not enough information
A: 3 years

Q: Paul Reynolds crisscrossed his sketchbook with furious strokes, filling the pages with images of the vengeance he would take on his former coworkers at Fear and Loading Games. He'd founded the company three years back and, just a few hours ago, his partners and erstwhile friends had fired him without cause or warning. He concentrated hard as his pen brought to life demonic figures from one of the best-selling comics he'd created, scythe wielding cyber-men called Myrmidons who tore into surprised computer programmers with fangs and claws. Elsewhere on the page, computers assembled themselves into 21st century Golems, rising up against traitorous CEO's and producers to crush them to bloody pulp as they cowered beneath their desks. Sitting at the bar in Senor Goldstein's Mexican Restaurant in San Jose, California, Paul's own artwork engaged him for the first time in months, maybe years. Under other circumstances, that would have made him happy. But today's circumstances allowed only two emotions: despair and a burning desire for revenge. Not wanting to succumb to the former, and not quite wanting to find a gun and go back to the office, he instead drew. He had turned to a fresh page and begun to sketch his most elaborate revenge-scheme yet when a woman walked into his line of vision. There were four or five other women in the restaurant already (most of them employees), but this one stood out. This one would've stood out anywhere. Her hair, cut short and spiky, was dyed a magenta so bright it nearly glowed. She wore a tight black t-shirt, baggy olive drab shorts that hung on shapely hips, and heavy black boots with two inch thick soles. She had a faded black messenger bag slung across her chest, the strap pressing between her breasts. If Paul had to guess, she wasn't wearing a bra. She definitely wasn't your average Silicon Valley techie on an early lunch break, and certainly not a restaurant employee. How long Paul worked at the company? - He just started - Few month - not enough information - About 3 years
A: About 3 years