(Question)
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... Question: When did the high court hear arguments? Options: A. After democratic voters brought a case B. After republican voters brought up a case C. After the supreme court decided to D. not enough information === The correct answer is
(Answer)
A

(Question)
Chloe's house reminded Paul of a cross between a used bookstore, a computer repair shop, and a college dorm. A wall of bookcases dominated the living room, each shelf crammed with two, sometimes three layers of books, videotapes, CD's and DVD's. More stacks of books and magazines stood in every corner. Paul was certain they would have taken over all the other flat spaces as well, were it not for the half-assembled computers and three dusty old monitors occupying the coffee table, end tables, and everything in between. The only semi-open spaces were the two couches that faced each other from across the room. A large red and black checkered blanket covered one of them, while the other was cracked but still serviceable brown leather. Thrift store purchases both, Paul thought. "The computer stuff belongs to one of my roommates," Chloe said. "She's always fiddling with those things to get better performance or whatever. The books are mostly mine or my other roommate, Kurt's. Come on into the kitchen and we'll rustle up a sandwich." Paul followed her back into the open kitchen area, which (given that he was ostensibly here to have lunch) he was relieved to see was clean. There was clutter in there certainly, but no dirty dishes or leftover foodstuffs appeared in evidence. Along the left wall was a cheap, plastic patio table with long wooden benches on each side and miss-matched chairs at either end. Newspapers, books, and a laptop occupied most of its surface area, but the end closest to Paul seemed clear enough to see actual use as a place for dining. "Is peanut butter ok?" she asked, motioning him towards one of the chairs. "Sure," he said and sat down at the table. As she started to prepare a couple of peanut butter sandwiches on white bread she said, "So, tell me Paul, why are you getting fired tomorrow?" Question: How long did Paul have lunch at Chloe's house? Options: A. 2 hours with a cocktail while they discussed Paul's life. B. Not long, Paul thought Chloe's house was nasty and didn't stay. C. not enough information D. For about 1/2 an hour. === The correct answer is
(Answer)
D

(Question)
Americans may become accustomed to the political turmoil swirling around President Donald Trump, but it remains an open question whether that turmoil will ultimately help or hurt Trump and his Republican allies, especially in an election year. Last week, it was Trump's firing of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and an apparent Democratic victory in a special congressional election in Pennsylvania a sign of a possible wave in the November midterm elections. This week, it was a series of presidential tweets criticizing the Russia probe, followed by a controversial Trump statement of congratulations for newly re-elected Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump also added former U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova to his legal team. DiGenova has alleged that elements of the FBI and the Department of Justice have been out to frame Trump in connection with the Russia probe. Trump ignored shouted questions Tuesday from reporters at the White House who asked whether he wanted to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, who is leading the Russia probe. Earlier, House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, told reporters at the Capitol that he had received "assurances" that firing Mueller was "not even under consideration." The latest back and forth over the Mueller investigation came after several days of presidential tweets complaining about the probe, including one blasting it as a "total WITCH HUNT with massive conflicts of interest." The tweets sparked new fears that Trump might try to have Mueller fired. Some Republicans warned that an attempt to fire Mueller could put Trump's presidency in jeopardy. "I think anything directed at firing Mr. Mueller blows up the whole town, and that becomes the end of governing and the presidency as we know it," cautioned Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The renewed focus on the Russia probe came in the wake of last week's firing of Tillerson. That, in turn, raised the prospect of more administration changes. Question: What is probably true about Trump? Options: A. he is being framed B. not enough information C. he is assured by his counsel D. he will not fire any else === The correct answer is
(Answer)
C