Ques: SEOUL The U.S. and South Korea remain united in pursing a diplomatic solution to end the North Korean nuclear threat, but their national security priorities may differ over what would be the role of the U.S. military in Korea after a denuclearization deal is reached. "That is going to be the moment of truth, so to speak, when the United States and South Korea will have to agree on what kind of security alliance we want to maintain moving forword," said Go Myong-Hyun, a North Korea analyst at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in Seoul. U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday revived the June 12 Singapore summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, eight days after canceling it. Trump said he was convinced of Kim's commitment to denuclearization by the renewed diplomatic talks that included a visit to Washington by Kim Yong Chol, the North's former intelligence chief, who carried a letter from the North Korean leader. South Korean President Moon Jae-in has been influential in facilitating the U.S.-North Korea summit, in getting Kim to agree to the broad goal of denuclearization, and in urging Trump to stay committed to the diplomatic process to resolve differences with North Korea. President Trump seems to be leaning now towards Moon's approach versus the more confrontational stance advocated by some of his security team in demanding that North Korea unilaterally and completely disarm before any concessions are granted. Friday Trump downplayed expectations for a major breakthrough at the summit, saying it will be the beginning of a process. He also backed away from his "maximum pressure" approach that stressed tough sanctions and the threat of military force, focusing instead on brokering an agreement to end the North's nuclear program for economic aid and security guarantees that could include a peace treaty to replace the armistice that ended the Korean War in 1953. South Korean officials said there is possibility that Moon may join Trump in Singapore to help negotiate a nuclear deal with Kim, as the... Question: When did Trump revive the Singapore Summit? Options: A. not enough information B. June 12th C. Eight days after cancelling it D. When Kim came to Washington === The correct answer is
Ans: C

Ques: I was 35 weeks pregnant when I had my stroke. For weeks prior to the event I kept experiencing 'visual disturbances.' I felt when I was reading a newspaper or book a sense that my eyes were crossing. I'd feel aware right before it would occur and I would rush to look in a mirror only to discover my eyes were not crossing. I informed my OB who blamed it on the blood vessels in my eyes enlarging due to pregnancy. Ummm ok. You know more than me. Later I was told by a surgeon what I was experiencing was 'textbook' for the passing of blood clots through my occipital area of the brain! The feeling would eventually subside. I awoke one morning feeling 'kind of fuzzy' headed. Like I had slept too hard. I sat with my husband at the kitchen table for our morning coffee and newspaper and for no reason I could imagine I was unable to swallow my coffee and it dribbled out the left side of my mouth. My husband asked me what was going on and I apparently told him, I was 'stroking' out. He got up from the table assuming I was OK and went off to take his morning shower. While in the shower it occurred to him something might not be right. He came back to the table where I was struggling to lift myself from the chair. I put my hands on the table to lift my body and my left hand kept sliding off the edge. He finally got behind me and tried to lift me under my arms and I crumbled to the floor. He then called my OB and told him he thought I'd had a stroke. My OB immediately expressed his doubt but my husband was advised to call an ambulance to get me to the ER. I never really experienced pain from the stroke. Question: What is the name of the narrator's husband? Options: A. not enough information B. James C. John D. Jim === The correct answer is
Ans: A

Ques: My partner's parents decided to help with all the planning and set up for his sister's wedding. I am sure part of the reason was because they had offered to foot part of the expenses. There came a point in the planning, when his mom seemed to sort of run-amok with her ideas. His sister ended up accepting some plans for her wedding that I don't think she was really that fond of, but she went along with them anyways. One of the things that stands out the most to me, was this idea that they would make a large wooden box with a hole in it, and people would smash their dinner plates into the box. Then the fragments of the broken plates would be put into metal keepsake tins for the guests to take home. (The tins were cute, the trash inside seemed very weird to me.) So imagine it's the evening of your wedding reception, and people are in a corner of the room smashing their plates into a box. And then part of your wedding party is supposed to go in the back and fix up the tins of broken ceramic ware. It was like an exercise in how to needlessly generate extra stress hormones in a large room full of people. My partner's sister looked like she cringed every time someone threw a plate in the box. It is weird (and wasteful) to propose to break brand new plates for a tradition that isn't even part of your ancestry. It's weird to railroad the people getting married into accepting to do things they don't really want. Soon after that, my partner's mother offered that she would be happy to help us plan and throw our wedding too, just like they did for his sister. I think the experience made us both content to elope. Question: Why did the partner's sister cringe? Options: A. Because of the keepsake tins falling. B. not enough information C. Because of the plates being thrown into a box D. Because of the box falling on the floor === The correct answer is
Ans: C

Ques: I recall just one case of its kind. In my first year out of high school in college, I didn't quite get along with one vocal pipsqueak of a guy. Mid-year one afternoon post-dismissal, a small white car drove past dangerously close to me and honked as I made my way to the bus stand home. If there had actually been any malice intended, I would have been caught out totally by surprise. The next day, he wondered aloud why I did not respond or react to him flippantly wanting to ram me with his car as he drove by. To think of it, I had already taken a swipe at another guy whom I suspected of being behind the wheel less than an hour earlier. Professing some half-hearted disinterest, I thought and felt to myself that this episode wasn't over - yet. Fast forward some 4560 days later, this guy is suddenly absent from college for almost a week. Successive class lecturers note that it is not like him to skip classes without a valid reason. Late on the second day of absence, another lecturer asks our class about him. "His car crashed.", I state almost flippantly, with a weak spirit of retribution shining inside my gut. But as you would realize from answering this question it later turned out to be true. While driving at quite a clip near his home, he had barreled through a residential cross-junction and broadsided a delivery van that had charged through the open junction with no regulating traffic lights. The van ended up upside down on the road shoulder and his parents-issued car was out of commission for like, three weeks. He suffered a concussion and a shattered nasal septum from the impact and police issued the van driver a ticket for dangerous driving. Basically, he had joked about striking me with his car hit-and-run and I had later joked to that lecturer and the class that he had crashed his car - and it turned out I was right. Question: What is probably true about the driver? Options: A. The driver is never in a hurry B. The driver has no car C. not enough information D. The driver has anger issues === The correct answer is
Ans:
D