Netflix has agreed to buy Warner Bros. and HBO Max for $83 billion, and many people in Hollywood are angry and afraid about what this will mean. Theater owners, writers, and unions say the deal could lead to more movie theaters closing, fewer jobs, and less risky, creative films because one giant company would control so much of what gets made and how it’s shown. Netflix says it will keep releasing Warner Bros. movies in theaters “for now,” but critics don’t trust this promise, especially since the company’s leaders have called movie theaters “outmoded” and say most people prefer to watch at home. Workers in Los Angeles, who have already faced layoffs from the pandemic, strikes, and AI, see this merger as more “consolidation” that could shrink the industry and reduce competition even further. In one well-developed paragraph, explain what “consolidation” means in this situation and describe at least one possible benefit and two possible harms of Netflix buying Warner Bros., then say whether you think the government should approve or block the deal and give clear reasons for your opinion.

A judge recently ruled that Lindsey Halligan, a Trump loyalist serving as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was unlawfully appointed, which led to the dismissal of criminal cases against former F.B.I. director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. However, because the judge’s order did not clearly say that Halligan must be removed from her job, the Justice Department has kept her name on official filings, angering other judges who say this defies the ruling. In court, prosecutors admitted they were told to keep using her signature while also adding higher officials’ names, even though another judge said it was “difficult to reconcile” that with the earlier decision. The conflict is part of a larger pattern in which the administration has tried unusual methods to keep favored U.S. attorneys in place without normal Senate approval, and an appeals court has already ruled similar maneuvers illegal in New Jersey. Judges in Virginia may now choose to appoint their own interim U.S. attorney, which could set up another showdown over who controls these powerful positions. Imagine you are explaining this situation to a friend who is just learning about checks and balances in government; write a paragraph that describes why it matters how U.S. attorneys are appointed, how judges and the administration are disagreeing in this case, and what might happen to people’s trust in the justice system if court rulings about leaders like Halligan are ignored.

Gianni Infantino, the president of FIFA, created a brand-new “FIFA Peace Prize — Football Unites the World” and quickly awarded it to his close ally, President Trump, after Trump failed to win the Nobel Peace Prize he wanted. Infantino has gone out of his way to praise Trump, rent office space in Trump Tower, and move important FIFA events to places that benefit Trump politically, even though FIFA is supposed to stay politically neutral. Supporters say the close relationship helps prepare for the 2026 World Cup, which will mostly be held in the United States and requires cooperation on visas, security, and stadiums. Critics argue that Infantino is crossing a line by treating Trump like a friend and partner instead of keeping distance as a global sports leader, and they worry that FIFA events and decisions are being used to reward Trump and punish his political rivals. The situation raises big questions about where sports ends and politics begins. Write a short opinion piece (about 8–10 sentences) in which you argue whether international sports organizations like FIFA should stay strictly neutral in politics or whether it is acceptable for them to build close relationships with powerful leaders; use at least two specific details from this story to support your point of view and explain how those details show either the risks or benefits of Infantino’s approach.

Two large studies in the scientific journals Nature and Science found that brief conversations with AI chatbots can meaningfully change some people’s political opinions about candidates and issues. In experiments with tens of thousands of voters in different countries, chatbots trained to argue for one side were about four times more persuasive than traditional TV campaign ads, especially when they gave lots of reasons and examples (even though some of those “facts” were wrong). Researchers noticed that bots supporting right-leaning politicians made more inaccurate claims than those backing left-leaning ones, and that the chatbots sometimes invented evidence to keep persuading users. Experts worry that as AI becomes more advanced, powerful groups could use customized chatbots to quietly target voters and gain a big advantage in elections, while many people may not realize how strongly their views are being shaped. At the same time, the studies suggest that people aren’t as “unmovable” as some think, and that new information — even from a bot — can get them to reconsider their beliefs. Create a “warning and solutions” paragraph in which you first describe two possible dangers of using persuasive chatbots in politics (for example, spreading false information or giving unfair advantages to certain candidates), then suggest one or two rules or protections you think governments, tech companies, or voters themselves should put in place to keep elections fair while still allowing people to use AI tools.

New immigration policies under the Trump administration have suddenly blocked some people from completing their final step toward U.S. citizenship, even after they passed tests, background checks, and interviews. Immigrants from countries on a travel-ban list — including Iran, Haiti, Somalia, and others — have had their naturalization ceremonies or interviews canceled with little explanation, leaving them in legal limbo after years of following the rules. Many had already told friends, planned celebrations, and dreamed of voting in upcoming elections, only to receive short emails saying their ceremonies were off, with no new date given. Lawyers and advocacy groups say these changes are part of a broader effort to make citizenship harder to obtain and to limit who is allowed to become American, even for people who have lived, worked, and paid taxes in the United States for decades. The sudden cancellations have caused fear, disappointment, and frustration among would-be citizens who feel unwelcome and unsure about their future. Create a cause-and-effect flowchart in paragraph form. In one structured paragraph, list at least four steps that show how the administration’s policy changes lead to impacts on individual immigrants and communities. Begin with the policy decision (canceling or pausing ceremonies), then explain what happens next (delays in citizenship, legal uncertainty, emotional stress, limits on voting or work stability), and end with a broader effect on families or communities. Use clear linking phrases like “as a result,” “because of this,” “which leads to,” and “ultimately” to show how each step connects to the next.