Six weeks after arriving in the United States, Hassan Abduraheem takes a seat in the back pew of Tar Wallet Baptist Church. Tucked into the woods along a country road in rural Virginia, the church holds about 50 worshippers. On this cold November Sunday, Abduraheem and his family of eight noticeably increase the congregation's size. They do their best to follow the unfamiliar English of the old Baptist hymns, which are very familiar to their new neighbors. And they share the hymns from their former home Sudan. Standing in a single line in front of the altar, the family fills the church with Arabic song. "Unbelievable," Abduraheem says repeatedly, as he describes his journey from a crowded prison cell in Sudan to a fixed-up house on the farm of his new pastor. "Unbelievable" seems like the only word that could describe the turn his life took, thanks to a Facebook post and a U.S. congressman. Abduraheem's work as a former pastor is not outlawed in his native Sudan, but Christians are a minority in a diverse country that has suffered through multiple civil wars. According to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, there has been "an escalation in the Sudanese government's persecution of Christians," since the 2011 secession of South Sudan. Abduraheem says his work was spreading the gospel; the Sudanese government accused him of espionage, and he was detained along with two other pastors in December 2015. "The first day when they took us to the prison, they beat us," he says softly. Abduraheem was shifted from prison to prison. For five months, he wore the same clothes he was wearing when he was arrested. His eyes became damaged from the harsh prison light. Yet, despite constant interrogations, just two meals of beans a day and a tiny cell with barely enough room to sleep, he says the worst part of prison was not knowing. Question: For how long has Sudan probably not accept Christian worshipers? Options: - They just started in 2011 - not enough information - Only ten years before 2011 - Many years before 2011 === The correct answer is
Many years before 2011

Of course, the most unforgettable classmate I had was also the most vicious bully. I attended a boarding school for badly behaved children and it had its fair share of bullies who had been expelled from mainstream schools. But this particular bully had even the teachers running scared. When he went off on one, it could take up to four teachers or members of care staff to get him under control. On my first night at boarding school, he stamped on someone's face and left them permanently disfigured. I never saw anything that bad again but it stayed with me and I could never sleep properly in that school again. On another occasion, it blew up and there were several members of staff restraining him when he farted. To see the teachers all moaning and groaning and huffing and puffing whilst trying to hold him down was hilarious, literally tears in their eyes. He was unpredictable and he didn't care. I once saw him swing a hammer at another pupil and throw snooker balls at another, and he used to punch as if he was throwing something, so it would result in a painful blow. Eventually, the staff couldn't cope with him as they were just as scared as we were. He was removed from the school and placed in a secure unit. The night he left, several of us cried with relief. Last year, I was reading an article in a newspaper when a name caught my eye. It seems he became a hopeless heroin addict at some point and had died in his flat on an overdose of prescription drugs and smack. I felt sad when I read it but I couldn't work out why. Maybe it was because my brother died in the same manner? He was certainly a character, an absolute nutter and ruthless bully who had everyone fearing him. Most definitely the most unforgettable classmate. Question: Why were the students happy to see the bully gone? Options: - Because the bully farts - Because the teachers have tears in their eyes - not enough information - Because there will be no more unnecessary bullying and assault on them === The correct answer is
Because there will be no more unnecessary bullying and assault on them

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Saturday slammed China's militarization of disputed South China Sea islands, insisting that weapons systems recently deployed in the area were meant to intimidate and coerce Beijing's neighbors. The comments came during a speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual Asian defense forum in Singapore. In the speech, Mattis laid out the broader U.S. strategy for a "free and open" Indo-Pacific region. "China's policy in the South China Sea stands in stark contrast to the openness our strategy promotes. It calls into question China's broader goals," Mattis said. Specifically, the Pentagon chief mentioned China's deployment of anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles, electronic jammers, and the landing of a bomber aircraft at the Paracel Islands off the coast of Vietnam. "Despite China's claim to the contrary, the placement of these weapon systems is tied directly to military use for the purposes of intimidation and coercion," Mattis added. Though much of the world is focused on an upcoming summit between North Korea and the United States, this year's Shangri-La Dialogue has focused primarily on the region's long-term future and how to deal with a more assertive China. Beijing has begun projecting power beyond its borders, most notably through the construction and militarization of islands in disputed areas of the South China Sea. China claims nearly the entire South China Sea, despite overlapping claims by countries including Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan. Last week, the United States disinvited China from the Rim of the Pacific exercise (RIMPAC), a major international maritime exercise to be held later this year, citing Beijing's behavior in the South China Sea. Mattis on Saturday referred to that disinvitation as an "initial response" to China, but he did not outline any additional steps that might be taken. "The U.S. will continue to pursue a constructive, results-oriented relationship with China, cooperating when possible and competing vigorously where... Question: What does Jim Mattis think about militarization of the South China Sea islands? Options: - he is upset - he is indifferent - he agrees with them - not enough information === The correct answer is
he is upset