SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA South Korean President Moon Jae-in said he urged North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to directly engage with Washington to salvage the June 12 nuclear summit with the U.S., when the two leaders held a surprise second inter-Korean summit Saturday. "I emphasized that the two sides must directly communicate in order to eradicate any misunderstandings, and preliminary talks through working-level negotiations on key agendas are necessary," said President Moon at a press briefing in Seoul Sunday. North Korea requested the meeting between Kim and Moon after U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday canceled the Singapore summit. Trump said his decision was based on the "tremendous anger and open hostility displayed" by North Korea officials recently over U.S. demands that Pyongyang follow the Libya denuclearization model. North Korea sees that model for rapid and complete denuclearization as a threat to the Kim government's security, since Libyan leader Moammar Ghadafi was later overthrown and killed by his own people, with support from a multinational military coalition that included the U.S. Pyongyang has called for a more incremental process that links concessions to partial nuclear reductions and postpones complete denuclearization until the North's security demands are met. Moon met with Kim on the North side of the inter-Korean border, in the same village of Panmunjom where the two leaders held a summit in April. At that meeting, on the south side of the border, the two leaders jointly declared their support for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. On Saturday Moon said Kim reaffirmed his commitment to end his country's nuclear weapons program, but shared his key concern that the U.S. would work to destabilize his rule despite any security guarantees it offers. "What is uncertain for Chairman Kim Jong Un is not his willingness for denuclearization, but he has concerns over whether North Korea can trust the fact that Washington will end its hostile relations, and guarantee the security... How does Trump feel towards Kim? A. not enough information B. Cautious C. Anger D. Friendly
B

(Question)
I have been married twice. My wedding experiences were both very different, even though I cried at both ceremonies. At my first wedding, I had been doing a lot of manual labor in the day prior to the wedding. Unfortunately, I did not have any gloves, and I ended up getting a lot of blisters on my hands. By the evening of the wedding, these blisters were very painful to touch. My bride was wearing what I thought to be an elaborate wedding dress. It was pretty, and it had a lot of buttons on it. Little, white, cloth covered buttons. These buttons were also a part of her sleeves and gloves. During the ceremony, she was holding my hands very tightly, and it hurt. I mean, it really really hurt! I didn't want to pull my hands away, as the gesture could be misconstrued, and I might hurt her feelings. So, I stood and held hands with her, enduring the pain. Although I managed to remain silent, I couldn't keep the tears from falling down my face. The more I cried, the harder she squeezed and the more painful it was. She always thought that I was crying due to emotion on our wedding day, and I never told her any differently I didn't want to hurt her feelings. Some years after that lengthy incarceration ended, I was fortunate to wed again. I had not done any manual labor before our wedding day. My hands were fine. Also, my bride did not have a lot of intricate buttons on her dress, nor did she wear gloves or even have sleeves. We were wed on a beach, just the two of us. No one else was in attendance. We had written our own vows, in fact, our own ceremony, including our own rituals. And yes, I cried, because I was / am so in love with my bride. I still tear up every morning when I awaken and see her sleeping beside me. Peace Why did the author's hands hurt so much during his first wedding? A. Because his bride was deliberately squeezing his hand hard B. Because his gloves were too tight C. not enough information D. Because they were blistered from the manual labor he had done the day before
(Answer)
D

Ques:I picked up this Sporf in Amsterdam Schipol airport. A spork I'd seen before, but the addition of a simple serration on the side of the fork end makes this a genuine "three-in-one" implement for eating one's full three-course takeaway meal on the plane. The sporf is no innovation; back in 1940 the "sporf" was born. It took me until 2015 to notice this one thanks to its rather pleasant design. The sporf is a little like most strategy documents that I come across. It is one implement designed to serve a multitude of goals, but with one fatal flaw: you can only ever use one part of the sporf / strategy at any one time. With the sporf, things would get messy trying to use the spoon and knife and the same time. The knife and fork work quite well in sequence but physics prevents me using both at the same time as I can with the older technologies of knife and fork. In strategy formation, we can develop a multitude of potential purposes within one document, killer vision statement or mission. But it's important to recognise that the teams around us will only ever be able to do one thing really well at any one time. This is a lesson oft ignored by schools, in particular, as they attempt to ask educators to create an ever-more creative curriculum without having first tackled attitudes towards summative assessments throughout the year. It is also a challenge in some of the world's most successful, but now stagnating, big businesses: they've spent decades or centuries building a reputation across a large array of devices, technologies, components or clothing, but the real strategy is working out which of the current array needs killed off to enable teams in their quest to develop something totally new, properly innovative. What is the author's hobby A. traveling B. using sporfs C. not enough information D. strategy formation

Ans:
C