Q: Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: WHITE HOUSE A day after U.S. President Donald Trump reversed a policy of separating migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border, the House of Representatives is set to vote Thursday on a pair of immigration bills that address the separations as well as other issues that have divided the country's major political parties. The outcome of the votes is uncertain. One measure is more hard-line, while the other represents a compromise between the Republican Party's conservative and moderate wings. The compromise bill includes a provision requiring children and their parents to be detained together if they cross the border illegally. It would also provide $25 billion in funding for Trump's much-promised border wall, change the existing visa lottery into a merit-based system and provide a path to citizenship for the young undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children. Republicans hold a majority in both houses of Congress. Party leaders, including President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan, have lobbied lawmakers this week in hopes of securing their support for the legislation. "We can enforce our immigration laws without breaking families apart," Ryan said Wednesday before Trump announced he would sign an executive order to end breaking up families. The president's policy retreat followed a withering attack by Republican and Democratic officials who characterized the family separations as inhumane. The actions left parents with little or no information about where their children were being taken or when or how they would be reunited. "It's about keeping families together while at the same time making sure that we have a very powerful, very strong border," Trump said as he signed the document just before departing the White House for a political rally in the state of Minnesota. Later, at the political rally, the president defended his position saying the executive order he signed hours earlier would not weaken his border strategy: "The border is going to be just as tough as it's been" despite... Question: When did President Trump's reversal of a policy of separating migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border occur? Options: A. when the House of Representatives voted on a compromise bill B. after an attack by Republican and Democratic officials calling the policy inhumane C. not enough information D. following House Speaker Paul Ryan's advising him to do so
A: B

Q: Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: On Christmas Eve Slawek Przekosniak received an SMS with these wishes: Wishing yo good ping super new". He didn't know who sent him that surprisingly enigmatic message. And he doesn't know to this day. A pity, because thanks to that person he reached his current status and number 67 on the list of the wealthiest Poles. Back then, during that beautiful, rusty white Christmas Eve night, Przekosniak, who was rudely kicked out from a social network for utopian fanatics of extreme phobias (www.ilovefobia.pl) just a few days earlier, got an idea. It was a quite good idea too, and the next SMS ("All at cart by unintentionally only honest lamb") convinced him it was the best idea of his life. Slawek Przekosniak, together with a friend from ilovefobia.pl - Czesiek Ciag, decided to set up an on-line service, through which one could send SMS greetings to mobile phones. And the most important feature of the service was that texts of the wishes were not going to be predetermined and there would be no set list of pre-selected options. Messages would be created by a special software program from random words provided by a customer. Such a system would allow for truly unique greetings, and after all, nobody said they had to be comprehensible. Czesiek took care of the development of the software, which for now they named "John of the Disc". Czesiek had suitable experience in the matter. While on the forum for (select as appropriate) phobics he designed an application, which created slogans for street protests. The application, even though it produced phrases completely illogical and nonsensical, became quite popular, and some of its most unique catchphrases you could have seen on TV - "Out With There Harm Out!" or "To Them Bag Away Now Now!" Two future men of success got to work and the SMS greeting portal bestbestbest.pl went live just before Easter. Question: What is probably true about Slawek Przekosniak Options: A. He Celebrates Christmas B. not enough information C. He is polish D. He uses a smartphone
A: A

Q: Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: Called the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study, this was a very large observational study looking at the link between fat and carbohydrate consumption and longevity in 18 countries across 5 continents. Running for 7 years and involving over 135,000 people, this was a very big study so its conclusions are right to take notice of. The key finding from the work that attracted the most media attention was that a high carbohydrate diet was linked with a higher risk of earlier mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to a lower risk of earlier mortality. Digging deeper into the study, the research team found that global diets consisted of 61 percent energy coming from carbohydrates and 24 percent energy from fats. And while those in the highest carbohydrate consumption group (a whopping 77 percent of energy) had a higher risk of earlier death, it wasn't cardiovascular disease they were dying from. What those other causes of death were exactly is unclear. Perhaps getting hit by a car running for a Mars Bar was one of them as a recent commenter on my Facebook page theorised. A paradigm shift? Not quite Does this study turn on its head 'everything we knew about nutrition?' Not quite. And here's why. Before the PURE study, there were many studies showing the opposite link between carbohydrates and longevity. So, when a conflicting study comes along, this grabs the media spotlight for the day. Here is just one example a major systematic review and meta-analysis from 2013 involving 17 individual studies and over 242,000 people showing a higher risk of earlier mortality as carbohydrate intake decreased. And this is the problem at times with observational research in that two studies can give polar opposite results so the findings of the PURE study should be seen through this filter. I'm not going to pick apart the PURE study for its flaws. Such issues are consistent across all observational studies no matter if the conclusions support consensus views or not. What is of value to... Question: What did the PURE study monitor? Options: A. protein consumption only B. not enough information C. carbohydrate and fat consumption D. fat consumption only
A: C