I had something that might have been a little supernatural. So I was trying to sleep one time, and I sleep under the blankets 99% of the time. I sleep downstairs, so hearing noise is pretty normal. Also, my door doesn't lock, or even latch the door handle, so you can just push it open. So I was laying down, maybe at 60% in terms of how close I was to falling asleep, so I just had to lay down for like 5 more minutes. But there are a lot of noises, and they freak me out even though I just sorta pretend that they're definitely a cat or my dog or something. So, I'm already slightly spooked, but I'm ignoring it and going to sleep anyway. But then, I hear my door open. That isn't too weird, I do have cats, so even though by this point my fear is intense, I just sorta blow it off and keep trying to sleep. And then, something that's never happened in a situation like this, I feel something moving towards me on my bed. It feels like a cats movements, with light feet making slight reverberations on the bed. So my fear goes away entirely, and I'm like "Oh okay, it's just the cat, that's good." And I lift my blankets off my head to let my cat under with me, and because the fear seemed to make the atmosphere under there very hot and tense, and then I look at my bed and there's nothing. So I just pretend nothing happened and go to sleep, but that still sticks with me and even though it's kinda underwhelming I still think it was very strange since I wasn't at the "edge of consciousness" stage of going to sleep, so I feel like the chances I imagined it aren't too high. The author believes they saw nothing because A. They were not wearing glasses B. The cat blended into the blankets. C. not enough information D. Nothing was there
D

(Question)
SINGAPORE What now? That is the question from the White House in Washington to the Blue House in Seoul and perhaps also inside the Ryongsong Residence in Pyongyang. Following the historic handshake here between a U.S. president and a North Korean leader, who inked their names to a document with vague but compelling promises, the question emanating from Sentosa's Capella Hotel was what will actually change on the Korean peninsula? Moments after the summit between Donald Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un concluded, VOA contributor Greta Van Susteren and I spent a few minutes with the U.S. president and his secretary of state, at the Capella. Trump was elated and within the hour would make a surprising announcement suspending "provocative" joint U.S.-South Korean drills on the Korean peninsula. "We had a great chemistry," the president, speaking to Van Susteren, said of himself and Kim. "We will do business." Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told us, "it's a great day." The president has essentially handed off to Pompeo the hard work of turning a sparse declaration on denuclearization into something truly transformative. Many will question whether Pompeo, who a decade ago was running an oilfield equipment company, is truly the man for the task. In Pompeo's background, however, are indications of his capabilities: First in his class at the U.S. Military Academy, time served on the House of Representative's intelligence committee, a brief stint as director of the Central Intelligence Agency and two meetings with Kim in Pyongyang. Perhaps he is now as astute as any American official on piecing together the Pyongyang puzzle. This correspondent an observer of the Korean peninsula over five decades, resident in Seoul for several years and once given the opportunity to frankly converse for a week (in 2013) in the North with KPA officers has gleaned some insight into the world's most reclusive state. Rarely can any collection of a few hundred words adequately encapsulate the geo-political conundrum. It is... After the end of the Story Pompeo is probably A. not enough information B. tired of doing interviews C. retiring at the hotel D. getting ready for a tough job
(Answer)
D

Ques: In recent weeks, the investigation into possible collusion between President Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia has intensified, raising the prospect that the probe could become an issue in advance of the November midterm congressional elections. Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort made another appearance in federal court in Washington Wednesday, where he pleaded not guilty to the latest round of charges brought by special counsel Robert Mueller. Last week, Rick Gates, Manafort's former deputy, pleaded guilty to lying to prosecutors and is now cooperating with the investigation. In mid-February, 13 Russians were indicted in connection with election meddling, which deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein described as an effort to "promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy. We must not allow them to succeed." Congressional inquiries also continue. Hope Hicks, the White House communications director and a longtime Trump aide, was the latest figure to testify before a congressional committee on the Russia probe. Hicks declined to answer some questions before a closed session of the House Intelligence Committee, frustrating several Democrats. "This is not executive privilege. This is executive stonewalling," said ranking committee Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff. But there was more pushback from the White House this week. President Trump fired off a series of tweets dismissing the probe as a "WITCH HUNT." "They have had this phony cloud over this administration, over our government," Trump told reporters at the White House last month. "And it has hurt our government, it does hurt our government. It is a Democrat hoax." Democrats reject that view, including Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. "I continue to believe that this is the most important thing that I will work on in my whole public career, and getting the whole truth out is extraordinarily important," he said. Warner's committee is also investigating possible... What is most likely true of Rick Gates after this news event? A. not enough information B. he is no longer working with the Trump administration C. he is actively working to undermine the investigation D. he is serving time in prison
Ans: B

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 cases are probably referred to the supreme court A. Only cases involving the legislature B. Only cases that are not traditional C. Difficult and important ones D. not enough information
C