In a rare display of bipartisan unity during an election year, Republicans and Democrats alike have condemned presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump for his comments about the ethnicity of a judge overseeing a class action suit against Trump University. Members of both parties lambasted the real estate mogul for remarks that they assert were racist. Trump said he felt U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, because of his "Mexican heritage," would not rule fairly in the case that charged Trump with fraud. Curiel is an American who was born and raised in the midwestern U.S. state of Indiana. U.S. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who has criticized Trump on multiple occasions during the campaign, tweeted: "Saying someone can't do a specific job because of his or her race is the literal definition of 'racism.''' Also leading the charge Monday were Trump's two former rivals for the Republican nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich tweeted that Trump's offensive "is flat out wrong.'' Trump, Kasich wrote, should "apologize to Judge Curiel & try to unite this country.'' Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed. "It's wrong and I hope he stops.'' But no mea culpa was forthcoming from the candidate. Trump insisted earlier Monday that Curiel could not be impartial in the legal action against him because the jurist's parents were born in Mexico and Trump wants to build a wall along the Mexican border. Republican Senator Susan Collins called Trump's comments "absolutely unacceptable." Democratic Congressman Filemon Vela said in an open letter published Monday that Trump's "ignorant anti-immigrant opinions," border wall rhetoric and continued attacks on a sitting federal judge "are just plain despicable." Vela, who represents a district along the U.S.-Mexico border, says his great-great-grandfather came to the U.S. in 1857 well before Trump's ancestors. Vela wrote, "Mr. Trump you are a racist and you can take your border wall and shove it." Kasich, Rubio and Collins joined other top... According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: What did Democrats probably do with Trump's comments on Judge Curiel? Options: A. Democrats probably ignored the comments B. Democrats probably used the comment to show Trump's incompetence C. Democrats probably used the comment to justify Trump's words D. not enough information
D

Every so often I see a scenario play out that I find rather disappointing. It works like this: someone posts a topic to their blog that is critical or controversial. This person can either be a community member, commentator, employee or otherwise; it doesn't matter who the person is. Then what happens is a series of comments are posted to that blog entry from readers that are critical of the post, thus challenging the author on their views. The author then either deletes the blog entry or disables the comments based on the feedback. In other words, a viewpoint is shared, an invitation for comment is provided, but that invitation is then revoked when the author of the blog post is dissatisfied with the response from their readers. I have seen this happen countless times over the years and I don't like this. I believe we should all be accountable for our words. Our words have the ability to inspire, to entertain, to challenge, but to also hurt. Actions have consequences, and so do words. As such, when I see someone openly share their thoughts on their blog and invite their readers to provide comments, I see that as a wonderful demonstration of accountability and engagement; debate is a beautiful thing when executed with politeness and respect. To then close that door, seemingly because people disagree with you, is in my mind the equivalent of walking out of a room in the middle of a debate. The excuse when folks are criticized of this behavior is typically "it is my blog and I can run it how I like". This is true: it is your blog, and you can run it how you like, but the true measure of a person is not just in what they say, but also in the conversation and discourse that follows. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: What is probably true about the author? Options: A. he doesn't read blogs B. not enough information C. he hates blogs D. he likes blogs
D

*Question*
When asked to define ourselves we often use broad brushstrokes. Without thinking we consult our internal list of "things that make me, ME" and find ourselves recalling words like "creative, outgoing, photography, guitar" before we've even had a chance to fully process the question. But how much does this internal list define us? I believed that my internal list was the best representation of myself until I read a quote by Annie Dillard that states: "How we spend our days, is of course, how we spend our lives". This quote hit me like a punch in the gut, it's blatant truth so indisputable; how I spent my days, regardless of what I told myself about myself, was ultimately who I was. Or at the very least would be how I had spent my life. This is why, when completing my self portrait, I decided to focus on the everyday. Within my self portrait I wanted to present the viewer with a familiar yet abstract sense of reality through which we get to see amalgamated glimpses of the everyday acts that define me, rather than a linear narrative or a simple re-telling of 'a day in the life'. Thus combining to create a picture of: my daily life, through an abstracted version of 'the everyday'. To create a sense of 'the day' or linear progression of time I segmented my video with four still images of the sky in various stages of daylight (morning, midday, afternoon, evening) that match the lighting seen in each concurrent video segment. The everyday acts that define me were presented in a series of short video segments that include scenes of me catching the tram, recording music and riding my bike. To disrupt the sense of linear narrative the visual segments are bluntly edited together, with nothing linking the sequential shots and a quite abrupt ending. I also attempted to create an overall sense of confounded time and space by overlaying audio from certain video segments onto others. Long, singular focus, handheld shots were also used to enhance the sense of voyeuristic glimpses. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: What is probably true about Annie Dillard? Options: A. She is a writer B. She is not a thinker C. She is fake D. not enough information
**Answer**
A