(Question)
I have been preparing our house for the market and in doing so, I have gotten rid of a lot of stuff! I am definitely the hoarder in our house. My husband could live out of two bags, use about five kitchen items each year, and doesn't gather anything for future use or hang on to much for sentimental value. (Which probably means the items he has hung on to mean a whole lot more!) I am always tucking something away here or stashing materials thereall in preparation for "some day." It's also part of the teacher in me. Do you know many teachers that don't have a ton of stuff or utilize every bit of storage available? But, over the last several years, I've been fairly good about going through things every six months and weeding out a little here and a little there. Today I'll be sharing six simple ways to declutter your home and why you should! GIVE THINGS AWAY It's nice to make money, but sometimes you come across something that you really think someone else could use and you don't want to throw it away. If it's the perfect fit for that person, they may adopt the item and add their own wear and tear! Anyone that's had children knows that kids go through things so fast and it's nice to save a little money by taking hand-me-downs from a friend or relative. If the receiver decides they don't want the item, let it be. They'll either get rid of it on their own or decline the offer. If they choose the latter, maybe the rest of this list will help. PACK If you know you don't want to purge an item from your house AND you know that you will use it in the future, but it's not an everyday use item, pack it up. We have several containers of things in our garage that are full of items we use once or twice each year. I have added close to 100 boxes of things to simply declutter our home while it's on the market. I took a look at everything and kept the essentials (well, maybe even more than the essentials), and packed up the rest. The narrator believes that: A. it's a good thing to hoard stuff B. not enough information C. it's a good thing to keep junk D. it's a good thing to have order in your home
(Answer)
D

(Question)
At an early meeting of the British Sociological Association's "Activism in Sociology Forum" members met to discuss how we might play a more campaigning role in the world outside the academy. Pragmatically, academics tend to work long hours. We are faced with multiple and competing demands: teaching, administration, publishing, marketing, research, grant-bidding, and so on. The REF has ramped up the requirement to demonstrate the efficacy of our research in "the real world" (our impact upon society, economy, and culture rather than upon knowledge per se, or upon the academic discipline). Maybe here I suggested, as my contribution to the meeting was a chance for those of us interested in progressing social justice to lever officially sanctioned space, in our busy day-to-day lives, to do more of this sort of work? Maybe we should welcome the REF impact agenda? I learned afterwards that eminent British sociologists, whom I respect enormously, regarded such a viewpoint as "naive" and "embarrassing". Indeed, critics interpret REF as just one mode of the heightened, neoliberal, managerial control that is degrading academic life and infesting universities. So, how should we think about the REF impact agenda? Because of its obvious connections with social improvement and reform through policy action, social policy is regarded as one disciplinary area that is well-placed to meet and benefit from the impact agenda. Yet there has been surprisingly little concerted discussion amongst scholars about REF and impact. This is despite the fact that many millions of pounds of public funding accrue to the proposed or claimed impact of research (with monies channelled through research councils to individual projects or via regular, six-yearly centralised assessments of the quality of research in university departments). In addition, there is substantial funding directed toward the "impact industry"; the consultants, think tanks, PR firms, funding schemes, new software programmes, impact managers, specialist impact case study... Why did the sociologists think the author was naive? A. Because they were at a Activism in Sociology Forum meeting. B. not enough information C. Because there is substantial funding directed toward the impact industry. D. Because of what the author said at a meeting.
(Answer)
D

(Question)
The U.S. Congress is one step closer to averting a government shutdown Thursday after the U.S. House easily passed a $1.3 trillion spending plan that would end months of the government operating under short-term spending bills. The measure, approved by a 256-167 vote, now goes to the Senate, which has until midnight Friday to approve it and avert the year's third government closure. The massive bipartisan bill would keep the government funded until the end of September. Lawmakers had just hours to read the nearly 2,200-page bill released Wednesday night. Under Senate rules, a single senator can delay the vote but not stop it entirely. Senator Rand Paul has objected to the short time given to members to read the lengthy legislation. As of Thursday afternoon, the Senate was waiting to see how the vote would proceed, raising the prospect of another brief government shutdown. With midterm elections looming in November, the bill likely marks the final time Capitol Hill will consider major legislation this year. The measure would fulfill President Donald Trump's vow to boost military funding but provides funding for limited parts of his immigration agenda. The bill, which the White House said Trump supports, would give Trump a huge budget increase for the military, including a 2.4 percent pay raise for military personnel. "Today marks the beginning of a new era for the United States military," House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement Thursday. "This legislation fulfills our pledge to rebuild the United States military." After extensive negotiations between Republicans and Democrats, the bill also provides $1.6 billion for physical barriers and 150 kilometers (93 miles) of a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, short of the $25 billion Trump requested for the project he repeatedly touted on the campaign trail while pledging Mexico would pick up the cost. Who's immigration agenda has funding for limited parts of it? A. Trump B. Mexicans C. Lawmakers D. not enough information
(Answer)
A