(Q).
SEOUL — The recent U.S. missile strikes against Syria could increase pressure on North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons, or reinforce in Pyongyang the need for nuclear deterrence. The United States, France and Britain fired 105 missiles at three Syrian chemical weapons facilities on Saturday, in response to an alleged Syrian chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma that killed at least 40 people and wounded or sickened hundreds of others. The Syrian government has repeatedly denied any use of banned weapons. The combined military strike on Syria comes as the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump and the government of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un are preparing for an expected summit in late May or early June to discuss dismantling the North’s nuclear program in exchange for security guarantees. Trump’s willingness to use force against Syria can be seen to reinforce his “maximum pressure” campaign message, that in addition to imposing tough sanctions banning most North Korean exports, the U.S. would take military action, if necessary, to force Kim to terminate his nuclear program and end the continued development of a nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach the U.S. mainland. Calling the U.S. attack on Syria “a warning for Pyongyang,” the South Korean newspaper the Korea Joongang Daily, in an editorial on Monday said, “If Kim wants to be free from the fear of a potential raid, then he must be willing to denuclearize.” From this perspective the U.S. show of force in Syria will increase pressure on the leadership in North Korea to offer meaningful nuclear concessions at the Trump-Kim summit. “Unless it abandons at least part of its nuclear and missile capabilities then the Trump administration will not be satisfied,” said Bong Young-shik, a political analyst with the Yonsei University Institute for North Korean Studies in Seoul However the U.S. military strike on Syria could also reinforce concerns in North Korea that giving up its nuclear deterrent would make the... Question: When will the Trump-Kim summit take place? Options:  A. After the attack on North Korea  B. not enough information  C. Before the military strike on Syria  D. After the military strike on Syria  === The correct answer is
(A).
D


(Q).
As the United States consults with allies about a possible military response to a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria, Russia said Wednesday that all parties involved should refrain from actions that could destabilize the fragile situation in the region. Russia is an ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and has fought in support of his government in the conflict since 2015. The United States has backed rebel groups in Syria and blames Assad's forces for the attack in eastern Ghouta on Saturday that killed at least 40 people. Both Syria and Russia have denied the allegations. U.S. President Donald Trump has warned those responsible will pay a "big price," and he has spoken repeatedly with his British and French counterparts about a possible response to the attack. "We are looking for a coordinated response, whatever that response might be," State Department spokesman Heather Nauert said Tuesday. French President Emmanuel Macron said a decision would be made "in the coming days," and that any airstrikes would target the Syrian government's chemical facilities. Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop added her country's support Wednesday for any action that is "targeted, calibrated and proportionate." In addition to blaming Syria, Trump has further blamed Assad's backers in Iran and Russia for the eastern Ghouta attack. A global chemical weapons watchdog on Tuesday said it will send a team to investigate the incident.   The World Health Organization said Wednesday that according to reports from its partners, 500 people who sought treatment Saturday showed signs and symptoms of toxic chemical exposure. The WHO expressed outrage at the suspected use of chemical weapons and demanded immediate access to the area to provide care. At the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday, Russia vetoed a U.S.-drafted plan that would have set up a commission to investigate and assign blame for the chemical weapons attack.  The World Health Organization said Wednesday that according to reports from its partners, 500 people... Question: At the end of the story, Macron probably is Options:  A. Blaming Iran  B. not enough information  C. Still the President of France  D. Still upset with Trump  === The correct answer is
(A).
C


(Q).
As academic work is becoming arguably more precarious and competitive, shorter contracts are becoming the norm, and the number of people completing PhDs in the UK is increasing, the risks associated with researching academia are high. This post discusses and explores my experiences of being a PhD student researching women’s lived experiences of research evaluation in the UK, and my thoughts on and experiences of interviewing very senior and esteemed academics as a junior researcher. My PhD study explored research evaluation in the form of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) – a weighty force in UK academia – the outcomes of which, I argue, hold the potential to alter the course of an academic career considerably, as well as playing a role in the type of work that some academics do, particularly given the REF impact agenda. There is currently an international trend towards research evaluation with programmes such as the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA), the Performance-Based Research fund in New Zealand (PBRF), and equivalents in countries including Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands. What is clear is that there is not enough qualitative, exploratory research into the effects of research evaluation on academic careers, especially for women, and so my PhD study was born. My findings suggest that research evaluation in the UK actively contributes to the continuance of gender inequality regimes in the academy, and that the ability to negotiate managerial control and be politically savvy is increasingly important in the academic world. Before embarking on my PhD, I was acutely aware of the sensitivity of my research, as well as my own positionality with regards to my participants. Reflection is and was an important element in the research process for me, as it allowed me to reflect on the effects of the self on the research process and, ultimately, also on the data, as well as the various power dynamics discernible during interviews for my study. I was continually taken aback by participants’... Question: What does the author likely believe? Options:  A. That the REF system is useless  B. That the senior academics were disparaging  C. That the topic of their thesis is sensitive  D. not enough information  === The correct answer is
(A).
