Hmmm that's a hard one. At first I was going to say giving them daily chores, but the "reward" part of that has actually not been realized yet (what with all the eye rolling and such). So I will have to go with family dinners at the table. Sometimes, "dinner" is fast food, sometimes it is a meal I slaved over for hours - that part doesn't seem to matter. Whether we are talking about our day, learning manners, having serious discussions, or laughing until we spit our drinks - it is where grow. There have been horrible nights at the table, where we shared bad news. There have been fabulous nights where we celebrated successes and talked about exciting things to come. There have been nights where the kids can see that Mom and Dad are "at odds" and nights where they see us push that aside and joke with each other for the sake of saving the evening. When they were little, we did "About Your Day" - one funny thing, one sad thing, one new thing you learned. Now, they are all teenagers, and the conversations just seem to flow, with never enough time to fit it all in before someone has to rush off to work, to study, or to get ready for bed because we are eating "after practice". My twins will be Seniors next year, and I know that our table will look a little different from now on. But when I look at that worn oak (outdated) table, that needs refinishing in the worst way - I am grateful for the evenings there, where my kiddos learned to be a family. Don't be misled, we are not the Cleavers. We have "Fun Friday" where Mom does not get to badger them about their table manners (ugh - they revel in this), Sometimes we eat in the living room while we watch a movie, sometimes we eat in shifts because of our schedules. However, the majority of meals have been together ~ I feel like this is a gift we gave them. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: Who does not get to complain on "Fun Friday?" Options: A. not enough information B. Dad C. Mom D. Twins
C

This is a beauty myth that I have been wanting to bust for a while as I am surprised how many people actually believe it. I am quite vain so hate having visible grey hairs. Having naturally dark brown hair means that even a single grey hair is very noticeable. From the age of about 22 or 23 I discovered that I had about five grey hairs floating about. As soon as I could see them I'd pull them out. Then, a few months later when they were rearing their ugly heads again - pluck, out they'd come again! Up until I was about 27 or 28 I only had these 5 grey hairs, well that was all I could find anyway. Then from 28 onwards they have been inviting their friends and relatives to move in and I am slowly losing the plucking battle (side note: this increase in grey hairs at 28 was also the year that I got married...I wonder if their is any correlation between getting married and going grey??). Whenever I was having a conversation with someone about grey hairs and I'd mention that I pull mine out, they'd look at me horrified - 'you can't do that, seven more will grow back in its place' they would all warn me. Even my hairdresser was horrified that I plucked my grey hairs. One day when she was straightening my hair I could see a stray grey sticking up and it was driving me crazy. I asked her to pull it out and she refused saying that I'd end up with more if she pulled it out. I have never believed this old wives tale, mostly because for five years I kept plucking my greys yet they didn't increase in number. Plus it made no sense to me. Why would plucking greys cause more greys to grow when the same is not true for your coloured hair. Imagine if it were true - that would mean that the cure for baldness would be to pluck out your hair as each hair you pluck causes seven more to grow in its place - doesn't really make sense, does it? Or worse, each time you waxed your legs, seven hairs replaced each pulled one - what state would your legs be in now? According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: Who is the hairdresser? Options: A. The narrator's mother B. The narrator's boss C. The narrator's best friend D. not enough information
D

(Question)
SEOUL Arms control experts estimate that the dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear program could take a decade to complete, and cost $20 billion, if a nuclear agreement is reached between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un when they meet in Singapore on June 12. "The hard work has not yet begun, and it is gong to take sustained energy on the part of the United States, South Korea, Japan, China and North Korea. It's going to be a multiyear long process," said Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington. President Trump has said he expects a "very positive result" from the North Korea nuclear summit, but he also said it will likely be the beginning of a process to resolve differences over the extent of the North's denuclearization, and the specifics regarding what sanctions relief, economic aid and security guarantees would be offered in return. U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Sunday that North Korea would only receive sanctions relief after it takes "verifiable and irreversible steps to denuclearization." This position aligns closer to the Kim government's stance that denuclearization measures and concessions be matched action for action. And it backs away from demands made by some in the president's national security team that Pyongyang quickly and unilaterally dismantle all its weapons of mass destruction before any concessions would be offered. North Korea is estimated to have 20 to 80 nuclear warheads, both known and covert nuclear research and processing sites, and thousands of ballistic missiles that can be launched from mobile vehicles, and submarine based launchers have been tested in recent years. With such an extensive nuclear arsenal it could cost $20 billion to achieve the U.S. goal of complete, irreversible, and verifiable nuclear dismantlement (CVID), according to a recent study conducted by Kwon Hyuk-chul, a Kookmin University professor of security strategy. Kwon based his assessment in part on past nuclear deals... According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: Why did North Korea have a chance at sanction relief Options: A. not enough information B. Because they may denuclearize C. Because they have $20 million D. Because they meet with Trump
(Answer)
B