Q: Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: SINGAPORE North Korean leader Kim Jong Un agreed Tuesday "to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula" during a historic summit with U.S. President Donald Trump, who then unexpectedly said he was suspending military drills with South Korea. Kim's commitment to denuclearize was included in a document signed after the first-ever meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader. It calls for the two countries to jointly work on efforts to build a lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula, to establish new U.S.-North Korea relations and to recover the remains of prisoners of war and military members missing in action. The two sides promised to hold follow-up negotiations. While the document didn't lay out a specifics regarding denuclearization, Trump said at a news conference "We're starting that process very quickly. Very, very quickly, absolutely." "We're going to denuke North Korea," Trump also told VOA contributor Greta Van Susteren, adding that U.S. troops stationed in South Korea will remain in place, but announcing one concession long-sought by North Korea not included in the document signed earlier in the day. "We are going to get out of the war games that cost so much money," he said, referring to the U.S. participation in joint military exercises with South Korea. At his news conference, Trump said the war games were expensive, provocative and inappropriate. Later, a Pentagon spokesman said Defense Secretary Jim Mattis was "not surprised" by Trump's concession ending the war games and had been consulted, including discussions with Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. "We welcome the outcomes," the defense spokesman said. "We support them." Trump struck an optimistic tone about his talks with Kim. "My meeting with Chairman Kim was honest, direct and productive. We got to know each other well in a very confined period of time." The U.S. leader stressed that existing U.S. sanctions will remain in place until North Korean nuclear weapons "are no longer a factor." Question: What was being suspended? Options: A. not enough information B. document signings C. a news conference D. United States forces drills
A: D

Q: Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: The U.S. Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it may be open to new limits on the government's ability to track someone's movements by accessing data on that person's cellphone. A case before the high court could result in a landmark decision in the ongoing debate over civil liberties protections in an era of rapid technological change. At issue is whether law enforcement will be able to access cellphone data that can reveal a person's whereabouts without having to first obtain a court-issued search warrant. The case stems from the conviction of Timothy Carpenter for a series of robberies back in 2010 and 2011. Prosecutors were able to obtain cellphone records that indicated his location over a period of months, information that proved crucial to his conviction. On Wednesday, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union argued that law enforcement should be required to obtain a court-ordered search warrant before obtaining such information. They also argued that allowing law enforcement to access the cellphone data without a warrant would violate the prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures contained in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. "It is impossible to go about our daily lives without leaving a trail of digital breadcrumbs that reveal where we have been over time, what we have done, who we spent time with," said ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler, who spoke to reporters outside the Supreme Court following oral arguments. "It is time for the court, we think, to update Fourth Amendment doctrine to provide reasonable protections today." Some of the justices also raised concerns about privacy in the digital age. "Most Americans, I think, still want to avoid Big Brother," Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who often sides with the liberal wing of the court, said. Chief Justice John Roberts, who often sides with conservatives on the court, said the central question was whether the cellphone information should be accessible to the government "without a warrant." Question: Who's case caused the debate? Options: A. not enough information B. Wessler C. Freed D. Carpenter
A: D

Q: Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: Recently the news broke that Microsoft are acquiring GitHub. Effusive opinions flowed from all directions: some saw the acquisition as a sensible fit for Microsoft to better support developers, and some saw it as a tyrant getting their grubby fingers on open source's ecosystem. I am thrilled for Microsoft and GitHub for many reasons, and there will be a bright future ahead because of it, but I have been thinking more about the reaction some of the critics have had to this, and why. I find it fascinating that there still seems to be a deep-seated discomfort in some about Microsoft and their involvement in open source. I understand that this is for historical reasons, and many moons ago Microsoft were definitely on the offensive against open source. I too was critical of Microsoft and their approach back in those days. I may have even said 'M$' instead of 'MS' (ugh.) Things have changed though. Satya Nadella, their CEO, has had a profound impact on the company: they are a significant investor and participant in open source across a multitude of open source projects, they hire many open source developers, run their own open source projects (e.g. VSCode), and actively sponsor and support many open source conferences, events, and initiatives. I know many people who work at Microsoft and they love the company and their work there. These are not microserfs: they are people like you and me. Things have changed, and I have literally never drunk Kool-aid; this or any other type. Are they perfect? No, but they don't claim to be. But is the Microsoft of today a radically different company to the Microsoft of the late nineties. No doubt. Still though, this cynicism exists in some. Some see them as a trojan horse and ask if we can really trust them? A little while ago I had a discussion with someone who was grumbling about Microsoft. After poking around his opinion, what shook out was that his real issue was not with Microsoft's open source work (he was supportive of this), but it was with the fact that they still produce... Question: Who ate the cake? Options: A. not enough information B. johns wife C. fred D. john
A: D