Detailed Instructions: Write a question from the passage such that it identifies a character (a person or a thing) in the passage.
See one example below:
Problem: I really struggle to feel bad for people who actively choose to be miserable and manipulative. I'm dorky and like to use little proverbs all the time. One of my favorites is this: "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." At the end of the day, if someone has a problem, they can never resolve it if they don't truly wish to. You can give someone all the resources in the world, but you can't force them to utilize them. When I was 16, I dated a horrible guy. He was abusive verbally, emotionally, and sexually. He was an incredibly troubled young man and refused to seek help for his severe mental health issues. I eventually came to understand that he reveled in his misery. It was his identity. He acted like he wanted a cure and I'd set him up with resources, but he refused every single one. He may have struggled with serious mental illnesses, but being miserable perversely made him happy and he loved to use his struggles to justify his inexcusable behavior. He wanted to drag as many people into his fiery pit of anguish as possible. I later suffered from severe depression myself, and I never once used it as an excuse to hurt other people. My ex wasn't struggling with his mental health in terms of deliberating and carefully harming others. He was simply exhibiting a personality trait, one he chose to cultivate and it wasn't my problem. I ended up cutting him off completely in spite of all the threats. I will never feel bad for the awful plight he refuses to help himself out of. I have no patience for that type of person. Know what we call them? Toxic. Poison. A waste of time.
Solution: Who was abusive to the author?
Explanation: The question is based on the following sentences in the passage - 'When I was 16, I dated a horrible guy. He was abusive verbally, emotionally, and sexually.'. The sentence clearly explains that the author's boyfriend was abusive to her.

Problem: SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA During his first year in office, South Korean President Moon Jae-in's persistent pursuit of diplomacy, often working in parallel with U.S. President Donald Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign, played a significant role in persuading North Korea to engage in talks to end its nuclear program.
"Before the extreme measures might have been chosen by the United States, he gave diplomacy another chance to succeed," said Bong Young-shik, a political analyst with the Yonsei University's Institute for North Korean Studies in Seoul.
A year ago this week, Moon, a former human rights lawyer and candidate for the progressive Democratic Party, won a special presidential election held after former conservative President Park Geun-hye was impeached for her involvement in a bribery and corruption scandal. This year, Park was sentenced to 24 years in prison during criminal trial related to the scandal in which she was charged with abuse of power, coercion and bribery.
Moon assumed power at a time of increasing tensions, not just concerning North Korea's accelerated nuclear and ballistic missile tests, but also China's imposing of informal economic sanctions against South Korea for deploying the U.S. THAAD missile defense system, and the Trump administration's talk of possible military action to end the North's efforts to develop a nuclear armed intercontinental missile that could strike the U.S. mainland.
In his inaugural address in May 2017, Moon promised to engage in shuttle diplomacy with Washington, Beijing and Pyongyang to work out a peaceful solution to the growing crisis.
In a July speech in Berlin, President Moon laid out his vision for inter-Korean reconciliation that called for peaceful co-existence of the two Korean governments, but also said that denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is "the absolute condition for peace."
But unlike past progressive South Korean governments that provided unconditional economic assistance, the Moon administration complied with economic sanctions in place and offered only cooperation on humanitarian aid and exchanges. Seoul also balanced its outreach efforts with maintaining strong support for the U.S. alliance, for joint military deterrence, and for imposing increasingly harsh U.S.-led economic sanctions against North Korea.
Solution:
Who gave diplomacy another chance to succeed?