SEOUL The recent U.S. missile strikes against Syria could increase pressure on North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons, or reinforce in Pyongyang the need for nuclear deterrence. The United States, France and Britain fired 105 missiles at three Syrian chemical weapons facilities on Saturday, in response to an alleged Syrian chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma that killed at least 40 people and wounded or sickened hundreds of others. The Syrian government has repeatedly denied any use of banned weapons. The combined military strike on Syria comes as the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump and the government of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un are preparing for an expected summit in late May or early June to discuss dismantling the North's nuclear program in exchange for security guarantees. Trump's willingness to use force against Syria can be seen to reinforce his "maximum pressure" campaign message, that in addition to imposing tough sanctions banning most North Korean exports, the U.S. would take military action, if necessary, to force Kim to terminate his nuclear program and end the continued development of a nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach the U.S. mainland. Calling the U.S. attack on Syria "a warning for Pyongyang," the South Korean newspaper the Korea Joongang Daily, in an editorial on Monday said, "If Kim wants to be free from the fear of a potential raid, then he must be willing to denuclearize." From this perspective the U.S. show of force in Syria will increase pressure on the leadership in North Korea to offer meaningful nuclear concessions at the Trump-Kim summit. "Unless it abandons at least part of its nuclear and missile capabilities then the Trump administration will not be satisfied," said Bong Young-shik, a political analyst with the Yonsei University Institute for North Korean Studies in Seoul However the U.S. military strike on Syria could also reinforce concerns in North Korea that giving up its nuclear deterrent would make the... According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: How long will the summit most likely take? Options: A. not enough information B. about two days C. about three months D. under a minute
B

SEOUL This week's summit between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in, to be held on Friday, April 27, is expected to produce a denuclearization framework that U.S. President Donald Trump could support when he meets with Kim in May or June. The North's reassuring outreach of late, including its decision to unilaterally suspend all nuclear and missile tests, has set an optimistic tone that a deal can be reached. But it is still unclear if real progress toward peace can be achieved. There have been two past inter-Korean Summits in 2000 and 2007, both held in the North. The first produced a joint peace declaration promoting humanitarian exchanges and economic cooperation. From the second came support for a permanent peace treaty and a U.S. and China-led deal to end Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program for economic assistance and security guarantees. However, North Korea's continued nuclear development efforts and missile tests, in violation of past agreements, and other hostile acts, including a alleged deadly attack on a South Korean naval ship in 2010, brought an end to any progress made at these summits. Leading up to this week's inter-Korean summit, there are encouraging developments that a nuclear deal may again be within reach. U.S. President Donald Trump's maximum pressure campaign, that led efforts to impose harsh international sanctions ending most North Korean exports, are exerting increasing economic pain that could be pressuring the leadership in Pyongyang to actually give up its nuclear arsenal this time. "If the situation continues, the foreign exchange could be depleted and North Korea can face a very serious situation at the end of this year. This is one of the reasons why it has come out in favor of dialogue," said Cheong Seong-Chang, a senior North Korea analyst at the Sejong Institute in South Korea. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has made a number of concessions already by agreeing to talk about denuclearization without conditions, by appearing to drop past... According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: How did South Korea feel about the attack on the South Korean naval ship in 2010? Options: A. Agreeable to the rationale behind the attack B. Very upset and distraught C. Unclear on the outcome D. not enough information
B

*Question*
I end this small run of blog posts with the question posed by Professor Brian Boyd at the beginning of our evening: Do we want to close the achievement gap? We know we can close the gap. It's been done or almost been done before in Scottish education, but the answers have been ignored as they pass us by. The simple clue is this: poverty is single biggest predictor of achievement, and according to research (Hammonds sic, reference required), aged 10, a child living in poverty is 60% less likely to get to university. Boyd borrowed from his own mother's report card to ask us what kind of education we desire. Is it the academic success at all costs route, or is there another option we need to value as much, if not more? His mother's report card, one that prevented her from becoming a secondary school pupil in Glasgow, is filled with G and FG, until the last point: Character and conduct - excellent. What kind of pupils do we want to develop in Scotland? What do we value in our assessment system? Opening up opportunity for all is a tough game to play when the examination system rewards only certain types of behaviour, few of them related to what the Curriculum for Excellence says we stand for. In his own small community in East Kilbride, three secondary schools enter a period of meltdown as the local rag sets about creating its own local league table of performance, with those three 'teams' in competition for the top spot (or at least not the bottom one). Therefore, we must stop basing "the gap" largely on attainment. First of all, Boyd would like us to remove the traditional, and non-sensical academic/vocational divide. Is the law or medicine degree we value not vocational? (Are all General Practitioners not Plumbers, as Dr Murray on the panel suggests?) According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: For how long has the writer probably studied Boyd's works: Options: A. for a couple of hours B. for a few days C. for a year or more D. not enough information
**Answer**
C