The Trump administration’s recent airstrikes in Syria – just the latest action in a long-running conflict that has challenged U.S. presidents of both parties – has prompted a new round of questions on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers are asking where last week's strikes fit in the larger U.S. strategy in response to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and for greater clarity to prevent an escalation of the conflict.  “There needs to be a comprehensive strategy here laid out by the administration for Congress in terms of the options to pursue because of the urgency,” House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce said during a House panel Wednesday. “Does the administration support imposing costs on the Russians and the Iranians for their role in the Assad regime’s war crimes against its own people?”  In his speech announcing the air strikes to the American people Friday, President Trump said the United States is “prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents.” But later Friday, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said the latest action against Assad was a “one-time shot.” Trump ordered Friday's strikes just weeks after saying the U.S. would “be coming out of Syria like very soon," reflecting changes in the administration’s posture in response to Assad’s reported use of prohibited chemical agents.  “We’re at a real risk here of conducting strikes without any clear strategy,” Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told VOA. “The Trump administration for the past several months has issued contradictory statements, with former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and some diplomats saying that the U.S. troops inside Syria, in eastern Syria, would be dedicated to also countering Iran inside Syria. The Pentagon was saying something completely different – defeating ISIS and continuing that campaign,” he said.  Trump administration officials told a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs committee Wednesday the president’s goals in Syria remain clear. Question: Why did the Trump administration order Syrian airstrikes? Options: - to escalate conflict in the Middle East   - not enough information   - in response to use of chemical weapons against Syrians   - to defeat ISIS === The correct answer is
in response to use of chemical weapons against Syrians

WHITE HOUSE/BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS — A day after U.S. President Donald Trump reversed a policy of separating migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said there is a plan to reunite the more than 2,000 children who have been detained apart from their parents. "We have a plan to do that," the secretary told reporters at an event in Washington Thursday morning. Shortly before she spoke, a VOA reporter at an immigration court hearing in Brownsville, Texas, said prosecutors dropped misdemeanor charges against 17 migrants. The migrants, who were separated from their children remain detained, but dropping the charges could be a means to reunite them and allow the families to be detained as units. David Bier, an Immigration Policy Analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, said if government prosecutors are dropping criminal charges in similar cases across the immigration court system, it calls into question the Trump Administration's 'Zero Tolerance' policy towards immigration. It's "an even more clear signal that the whole purpose of bringing these prosecutions is to separate parents from children and not about enforcing the law." he told VOA. The administration's policy requires that anyone who crosses the border illegally face criminal charges. "If it continues to be the case that some of these cases or many of them are dismissed by courts – that should be the end of the policy," Bier added. The moves come as the House of Representatives prepares to vote Thursday on a pair of immigration bills that address the separations, as well as other issues that have divided the country's major political parties. Nielsen repeated her calls for lawmakers to act. "I want to be very clear on this. Congress has the authority and responsibility to make the law of the land and to fix the immigration system," the secretary said. "We have done everything we can do in the executive branch." The outcome of the votes is uncertain. One measure is more hard-line, while the other... Question: What did Bier think about the Zero immigration policy? Options: - he thinks it is bad   - He thinks they are enforcing the law   - he doesn't care   - not enough information === The correct answer is
He thinks they are enforcing the law

Hello I have been chased by a couple of angry dogs. I was visiting one of my clients, when, suddenly, out of the bushes, two snarling dogs attacked me. They weren’t necessarily mad, as in crazy, but they were very angry. They were large dogs, and they attacked my legs, knocking me down. I knew it was very dangerous to be down on the ground, as I was most vulnerable. I covered my genitalia, my neck and my face, as I struggled to regain my feet. Fortunately, during my fall, I saw a large tree branch on the ground near me. I grabbed it, and starting beating the dogs with it. I managed to land a few good hits. As I was hitting the dogs, their owner (my client) came outside, stood on her porch and laughed at me. When she saw me hitting her dogs with a stick, she called the dogs off of me. I asked her why her dogs attacked me, and why she laughed at me. She said that she had just given her dogs a big steak bone and they were upset when I came near and attacked me. I asked her why she would set me up in this way when she knew I was on the way over. She admitted that she wanted to see what happened, and she said that when she saw what happened she thought that it was funny. I did not keep the appointment with her. My trousers were torn, and my ankles, legs, and hands were bleeding. I told her that I would not be back, and left. Later that night, her husband called to apologize on her behalf. I told him that I appreciated the call, but he wasn’t the one who needed to apologize. Peace Question: Why was the writer attacked? Options: - not enough information   - Because the writer antagonized the dogs.   - Because the dogs were mad.   - Because the woman set him up to be attacked. === The correct answer is

Because the woman set him up to be attacked.