I once went out to have fun with a friend of a different nationality, and she wanted to go to a place that featured the music of her culture. Since I have always been interested in other cultures, I was happy to go along. While we were sitting at a table together, an older man came up and asked to buy me a drink. I told him "no thank you, I do not drink". My arm was laying on top of the booth because I was sitting sideways since my big old pregnant belly would not fit under the table. He reached over and took my hand and said " Come dance with me then". I again told him I was not interested in dancing. He began to squeeze my hand and insisting I get up and dance with him. I kept telling him no, and pointing to my belly and saying I would not be dancing with anyone. He just kept squeezing my hand harder and trying to pull me out of the booth. I got angry when I felt something break in my hand and screamed at him "Get your effing hands off me!" The bar owner came over to see what the problem was. I explained that "this jerk just hurt my hand because I would not drink or dance with him!" The owner looked at me crying, and the man laughing, and kicked my friend and I out of the place! Seems the rude SOB was his best friend. I got a bad taste for places of that culture (although I do love the cuisine) and a broken bone in my left hand for my trouble. She and I never went out again because she was so embarrassed about what the guy did to me, but she did take me to the ER on the way home. Who engaged in conversation in a booth at the bar? A. not enough information B. the pregnant woman and the rude man C. the pregnant woman and the bar owner D. the pregnant woman and her friend
B

(Question)
It has become increasingly common for academics to use social media to communicate with wider audiences. Twitter, like many other social platforms, typically measures success in terms of numbers of followers, likes and retweets, but this only tells us something about the spreading of messages but not necessarily whether the content of the messages is understood or embraced. One way to ascertain this is through network and language analysis, which, used together, can tell us how effective the communication is. Economists tweet less, mention fewer people and have fewer conversations with strangers than a comparable group of experts in the sciences, and use less accessible language with words that are more complex, with more abbreviations and with a more distant tone. Their tweets are less personal and less inclusive than those used by scientists. This is what appeared in April 2017 when we gathered data on tens of thousands of tweets from the Twitter accounts of both the top 25 economists and 25 scientists as identified by IDEAS and Science, including the top three economists at the time, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Erik Brynjolfsson and, on the other side, the top three scientists, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, and Richard Dawkins. At that time those accounts covered roughly two thirds of all the following. The timing is significant because 2016 has been declared the year of post-truth politics, the year in which appeals to emotions (pathos) superseded the significance of factual evidence-based information (logos), affecting people's constructions and interpretations of events. This has been accompanied by the growing prominence of political "alt" movements (e.g. UKIP, the Alt-right) and their aggressive, provocative, and populist narratives, and "fake news" leading to political shock events such as Brexit and the Trump election. The relatively low traction of economists in these public debates has been and continues to be an important issue. Does the public not trust economists? Don't they understand... The analysis lasted A. couple hours B. not enough information C. few years D. couple days
(Answer)
C

Ques: SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA The conservative leader of South Korea's main opposition party on Thursday spoke out against the upcoming U.S.North Korea summit. He also voiced concern that political considerations are driving U.S. President Donald Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in to compromise joint security for more false denuclearization promises from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. "I am rather pessimistic about whether this negotiation will work out well or not. The only means for North Korea to maintain its regime is its nuclear program. The moment that North Korea gives up its nuclear program, and the moment it opens up to reform, the Kim Jong Un regime will collapse," said Hong Joon-pyo, the chairman of the Liberty Korea Party. On June 12, Trump and Kim will meet in Singapore to try to reach an agreement to end the North's threatening nuclear weapons program in exchange for economic incentives and security guarantees that could include a formal peace treaty to replace the armistice that has been enforced since the end of the Korean War in 1953. Many South Korean conservatives had voiced strong support for Trump's "maximum pressure" polices to force Pyongyang to unilaterally give up its nuclear weapons through tough international sanctions in place that ban 90 percent of the country's trade, and the threat of military action. But they have been troubled by recent statements coming from the Trump administration indicating the United States may be willing to soften its demands for the complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement (CVID) of the North's nuclear program before offering any sanctions relief. Hong is worried that Trump may seek a deal that would quickly end the North's intercontinental ballistic missile program that directly threatens the U.S., and leave the regional nuclear threat to be resolved later. Trump seems overly intent to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough, Hong said, to shift the media focus away from the ongoing special prosecutor investigation he is facing over Russia's... Why was Hong Joon-pyo pessimistic about the meeting? A. Trump is being investigated over Russia's alleged involvement in the election. B. The meeting is occurring in Singapore C. not enough information D. Believes N.Korea won't give up their nuclear program
Ans: D

I'm going to take something that happened to my daughter for this answer. Billie Jo (our daughter) was probably around ten years old when it happened. We had a young Black Labrador dog who had become quite smitten with chewing things up that she wasn't supposed to. The list grew longer as the months passed. Looker, our black lab, had chewed up and eaten a $10 bill, my VCR remote control (probably around 1987), and a sticker-filled blackberry vine my wife had planted. How she did that one without serious repercussions is beyond me. She also had a habit of grabbing the mail as it slid through the slot that was in our front door, taking it out back and 'sorting' it for us. So what happened really came as no big surprise. My daughter was a very diligent student, never wanting to let down her teachers by not turning her homework in as soon as she got to school (at least until she hit 14). One morning our daughter was trying to find the math homework that she knew she had completed the night before. My wife assisted in the search and soon found a partially chewed up piece of our daughter's homework page. Our daughter was devastated! How could she possibly walk in to school and publicly announce, "My dog ate my homework!" without becoming the laughing stock of the school? Like this: Mama Bear (my wife) storms into the classroom and vehemently upholds our daughter's "dog ate my homework" bit, showing the teacher the half eaten paper. Funny thing was, the teacher would have never doubted our little girl for one minute. Back then, Billie Jo was the sweetest, cutest, most polite and well mannered child a parent could possibly hope for. And her teachers loved her. So, if you have partial proof, it can be a valid excuse. What is probably true about Mama Bear? A. Mama Bear protects her child and takes homework to school for her. B. Mama bear yells at her child for missing homework. C. not enough information D. Mama bear decides to let Billie Jo talk to her teacher herself.
A