Part 1. Definition
Write a question from the passage such that it identifies a character (a person or a thing) in the passage.
Part 2. Example
I really struggle to feel bad for people who actively choose to be miserable and manipulative. I'm dorky and like to use little proverbs all the time. One of my favorites is this: "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." At the end of the day, if someone has a problem, they can never resolve it if they don't truly wish to. You can give someone all the resources in the world, but you can't force them to utilize them. When I was 16, I dated a horrible guy. He was abusive verbally, emotionally, and sexually. He was an incredibly troubled young man and refused to seek help for his severe mental health issues. I eventually came to understand that he reveled in his misery. It was his identity. He acted like he wanted a cure and I'd set him up with resources, but he refused every single one. He may have struggled with serious mental illnesses, but being miserable perversely made him happy and he loved to use his struggles to justify his inexcusable behavior. He wanted to drag as many people into his fiery pit of anguish as possible. I later suffered from severe depression myself, and I never once used it as an excuse to hurt other people. My ex wasn't struggling with his mental health in terms of deliberating and carefully harming others. He was simply exhibiting a personality trait, one he chose to cultivate and it wasn't my problem. I ended up cutting him off completely in spite of all the threats. I will never feel bad for the awful plight he refuses to help himself out of. I have no patience for that type of person. Know what we call them? Toxic. Poison. A waste of time.
Answer: Who was abusive to the author?
Explanation: The question is based on the following sentences in the passage - 'When I was 16, I dated a horrible guy. He was abusive verbally, emotionally, and sexually.'. The sentence clearly explains that the author's boyfriend was abusive to her.
Part 3. Exercise
WHITE HOUSE/BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS A day after U.S. President Donald Trump reversed a policy of separating migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said there is a plan to reunite the more than 2,000 children who have been detained apart from their parents.
"We have a plan to do that," the secretary told reporters at an event in Washington Thursday morning.
Shortly before she spoke, a VOA reporter at an immigration court hearing in Brownsville, Texas, said prosecutors dropped misdemeanor charges against 17 migrants. The migrants, who were separated from their children remain detained, but dropping the charges could be a means to reunite them and allow the families to be detained as units.
David Bier, an Immigration Policy Analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, said if government prosecutors are dropping criminal charges in similar cases across the immigration court system, it calls into question the Trump Administration's 'Zero Tolerance' policy towards immigration. It's "an even more clear signal that the whole purpose of bringing these prosecutions is to separate parents from children and not about enforcing the law." he told VOA.
The administration's policy requires that anyone who crosses the border illegally face criminal charges. "If it continues to be the case that some of these cases or many of them are dismissed by courts that should be the end of the policy," Bier added.
The moves come as the House of Representatives prepares to vote Thursday on a pair of immigration bills that address the separations, as well as other issues that have divided the country's major political parties.
Nielsen repeated her calls for lawmakers to act.
"I want to be very clear on this. Congress has the authority and responsibility to make the law of the land and to fix the immigration system," the secretary said. "We have done everything we can do in the executive branch."
The outcome of the votes is uncertain. One measure is more hard-line, while the other represents a compromise between the Republican Party's conservative and moderate wings.
Answer:
Who reversed immigration laws at the border?