In a high-stakes legal drama that has captivated international attention, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces what may be his final battle against extradition to the United States. Set to commence on February 20, this critical juncture in Assange's prolonged legal saga underscores a contentious intersection of national security, freedom of the press, and human rights. U.S. prosecutors aim to try Assange on 18 counts, chiefly under the Espionage Act, for WikiLeaks' publication of a vast array of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents. These disclosures, which include the notorious 2010 release of video footage depicting the killing of civilians and journalists in Iraq by U.S. forces, have sparked a global debate on the limits of governmental transparency and accountability. Assange's protracted legal ordeal began over thirteen years ago, leading to a seven-year asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, followed by his current detention in a high-security British prison. His supporters, a diverse coalition spanning from international human rights organizations to Australian politicians and even Pope Francis, view him as a journalistic martyr targeted for exposing U.S. military misconduct and alleged war crimes. In contrast, U.S. authorities condemn Assange's actions as reckless endangerments of lives, framing the leaks as an unforgivable breach of national security rather than a public service. Assange's plight has galvanized a broad spectrum of support, underscoring the case's significance beyond the individual to the broader principles of press freedom and the public's right to know. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government, reflecting a growing international concern, has voiced support for Assange, signaling the case's diplomatic implications and its potential to strain U.S.-Australia relations.

As Assange's legal battle enters this decisive phase, the stakes extend far beyond his personal fate to fundamental questions about the balance between national security and freedom of expression. The outcome of this case could set a precedent with far-reaching implications for journalists and publishers worldwide. It poses a stark question: where should the line be drawn between protecting state secrets and upholding the public's right to information? The Assange saga calls for a nuanced, principled stand that upholds the freedom of the press while addressing legitimate national security concerns. It is a moment for reflection on the part of governments, the media, and the public on the essential values that should guide our actions and policies in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. As this case unfolds, it should not only be viewed through the lens of legal technicalities but as a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of freedom, responsibility, and accountability in the information age.

Q.1 What are U.S. prosecutors aiming to try Julian Assange for?

In a high-stakes legal drama that has captivated international attention, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces what may be his final battle against extradition to the United States. Set to commence on February 20, this critical juncture in Assange's prolonged legal saga underscores a contentious intersection of national security, freedom of the press, and human rights. U.S. prosecutors aim to try Assange on 18 counts, chiefly under the Espionage Act, for WikiLeaks' publication of a vast array of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents. These disclosures, which include the notorious 2010 release of video footage depicting the killing of civilians and journalists in Iraq by U.S. forces, have sparked a global debate on the limits of governmental transparency and accountability. Assange's protracted legal ordeal began over thirteen years ago, leading to a seven-year asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, followed by his current detention in a high-security British prison. His supporters, a diverse coalition spanning from international human rights organizations to Australian politicians and even Pope Francis, view him as a journalistic martyr targeted for exposing U.S. military misconduct and alleged war crimes. In contrast, U.S. authorities condemn Assange's actions as reckless endangerments of lives, framing the leaks as an unforgivable breach of national security rather than a public service. Assange's plight has galvanized a broad spectrum of support, underscoring the case's significance beyond the individual to the broader principles of press freedom and the public's right to know. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government, reflecting a growing international concern, has voiced support for Assange, signaling the case's diplomatic implications and its potential to strain U.S.-Australia relations.

As Assange's legal battle enters this decisive phase, the stakes extend far beyond his personal fate to fundamental questions about the balance between national security and freedom of expression. The outcome of this case could set a precedent with far-reaching implications for journalists and publishers worldwide. It poses a stark question: where should the line be drawn between protecting state secrets and upholding the public's right to information? The Assange saga calls for a nuanced, principled stand that upholds the freedom of the press while addressing legitimate national security concerns. It is a moment for reflection on the part of governments, the media, and the public on the essential values that should guide our actions and policies in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. As this case unfolds, it should not only be viewed through the lens of legal technicalities but as a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of freedom, responsibility, and accountability in the information age.

Q.2 What can be inferred about the global reaction to Assange's legal situation?

In a high-stakes legal drama that has captivated international attention, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces what may be his final battle against extradition to the United States. Set to commence on February 20, this critical juncture in Assange's prolonged legal saga underscores a contentious intersection of national security, freedom of the press, and human rights. U.S. prosecutors aim to try Assange on 18 counts, chiefly under the Espionage Act, for WikiLeaks' publication of a vast array of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents. These disclosures, which include the notorious 2010 release of video footage depicting the killing of civilians and journalists in Iraq by U.S. forces, have sparked a global debate on the limits of governmental transparency and accountability. Assange's protracted legal ordeal began over thirteen years ago, leading to a seven-year asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, followed by his current detention in a high-security British prison. His supporters, a diverse coalition spanning from international human rights organizations to Australian politicians and even Pope Francis, view him as a journalistic martyr targeted for exposing U.S. military misconduct and alleged war crimes. In contrast, U.S. authorities condemn Assange's actions as reckless endangerments of lives, framing the leaks as an unforgivable breach of national security rather than a public service. Assange's plight has galvanized a broad spectrum of support, underscoring the case's significance beyond the individual to the broader principles of press freedom and the public's right to know. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government, reflecting a growing international concern, has voiced support for Assange, signaling the case's diplomatic implications and its potential to strain U.S.-Australia relations.

As Assange's legal battle enters this decisive phase, the stakes extend far beyond his personal fate to fundamental questions about the balance between national security and freedom of expression. The outcome of this case could set a precedent with far-reaching implications for journalists and publishers worldwide. It poses a stark question: where should the line be drawn between protecting state secrets and upholding the public's right to information? The Assange saga calls for a nuanced, principled stand that upholds the freedom of the press while addressing legitimate national security concerns. It is a moment for reflection on the part of governments, the media, and the public on the essential values that should guide our actions and policies in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. As this case unfolds, it should not only be viewed through the lens of legal technicalities but as a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of freedom, responsibility, and accountability in the information age.

Q.3 In the passage, what does the term 'contentious' most likely mean?

In a high-stakes legal drama that has captivated international attention, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces what may be his final battle against extradition to the United States. Set to commence on February 20, this critical juncture in Assange's prolonged legal saga underscores a contentious intersection of national security, freedom of the press, and human rights. U.S. prosecutors aim to try Assange on 18 counts, chiefly under the Espionage Act, for WikiLeaks' publication of a vast array of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents. These disclosures, which include the notorious 2010 release of video footage depicting the killing of civilians and journalists in Iraq by U.S. forces, have sparked a global debate on the limits of governmental transparency and accountability. Assange's protracted legal ordeal began over thirteen years ago, leading to a seven-year asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, followed by his current detention in a high-security British prison. His supporters, a diverse coalition spanning from international human rights organizations to Australian politicians and even Pope Francis, view him as a journalistic martyr targeted for exposing U.S. military misconduct and alleged war crimes. In contrast, U.S. authorities condemn Assange's actions as reckless endangerments of lives, framing the leaks as an unforgivable breach of national security rather than a public service. Assange's plight has galvanized a broad spectrum of support, underscoring the case's significance beyond the individual to the broader principles of press freedom and the public's right to know. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government, reflecting a growing international concern, has voiced support for Assange, signaling the case's diplomatic implications and its potential to strain U.S.-Australia relations.

As Assange's legal battle enters this decisive phase, the stakes extend far beyond his personal fate to fundamental questions about the balance between national security and freedom of expression. The outcome of this case could set a precedent with far-reaching implications for journalists and publishers worldwide. It poses a stark question: where should the line be drawn between protecting state secrets and upholding the public's right to information? The Assange saga calls for a nuanced, principled stand that upholds the freedom of the press while addressing legitimate national security concerns. It is a moment for reflection on the part of governments, the media, and the public on the essential values that should guide our actions and policies in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. As this case unfolds, it should not only be viewed through the lens of legal technicalities but as a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of freedom, responsibility, and accountability in the information age.

Q.4 In the passage, to whom does "his" refer in "his current detention in a high-security British prison"?

In a high-stakes legal drama that has captivated international attention, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces what may be his final battle against extradition to the United States. Set to commence on February 20, this critical juncture in Assange's prolonged legal saga underscores a contentious intersection of national security, freedom of the press, and human rights. U.S. prosecutors aim to try Assange on 18 counts, chiefly under the Espionage Act, for WikiLeaks' publication of a vast array of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents. These disclosures, which include the notorious 2010 release of video footage depicting the killing of civilians and journalists in Iraq by U.S. forces, have sparked a global debate on the limits of governmental transparency and accountability. Assange's protracted legal ordeal began over thirteen years ago, leading to a seven-year asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, followed by his current detention in a high-security British prison. His supporters, a diverse coalition spanning from international human rights organizations to Australian politicians and even Pope Francis, view him as a journalistic martyr targeted for exposing U.S. military misconduct and alleged war crimes. In contrast, U.S. authorities condemn Assange's actions as reckless endangerments of lives, framing the leaks as an unforgivable breach of national security rather than a public service. Assange's plight has galvanized a broad spectrum of support, underscoring the case's significance beyond the individual to the broader principles of press freedom and the public's right to know. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government, reflecting a growing international concern, has voiced support for Assange, signaling the case's diplomatic implications and its potential to strain U.S.-Australia relations.

As Assange's legal battle enters this decisive phase, the stakes extend far beyond his personal fate to fundamental questions about the balance between national security and freedom of expression. The outcome of this case could set a precedent with far-reaching implications for journalists and publishers worldwide. It poses a stark question: where should the line be drawn between protecting state secrets and upholding the public's right to information? The Assange saga calls for a nuanced, principled stand that upholds the freedom of the press while addressing legitimate national security concerns. It is a moment for reflection on the part of governments, the media, and the public on the essential values that should guide our actions and policies in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. As this case unfolds, it should not only be viewed through the lens of legal technicalities but as a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of freedom, responsibility, and accountability in the information age.

Q.5 What is the main theme of the passage?

In a high-stakes legal drama that has captivated international attention, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces what may be his final battle against extradition to the United States. Set to commence on February 20, this critical juncture in Assange's prolonged legal saga underscores a contentious intersection of national security, freedom of the press, and human rights. U.S. prosecutors aim to try Assange on 18 counts, chiefly under the Espionage Act, for WikiLeaks' publication of a vast array of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents. These disclosures, which include the notorious 2010 release of video footage depicting the killing of civilians and journalists in Iraq by U.S. forces, have sparked a global debate on the limits of governmental transparency and accountability. Assange's protracted legal ordeal began over thirteen years ago, leading to a seven-year asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, followed by his current detention in a high-security British prison. His supporters, a diverse coalition spanning from international human rights organizations to Australian politicians and even Pope Francis, view him as a journalistic martyr targeted for exposing U.S. military misconduct and alleged war crimes. In contrast, U.S. authorities condemn Assange's actions as reckless endangerments of lives, framing the leaks as an unforgivable breach of national security rather than a public service. Assange's plight has galvanized a broad spectrum of support, underscoring the case's significance beyond the individual to the broader principles of press freedom and the public's right to know. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government, reflecting a growing international concern, has voiced support for Assange, signaling the case's diplomatic implications and its potential to strain U.S.-Australia relations.

As Assange's legal battle enters this decisive phase, the stakes extend far beyond his personal fate to fundamental questions about the balance between national security and freedom of expression. The outcome of this case could set a precedent with far-reaching implications for journalists and publishers worldwide. It poses a stark question: where should the line be drawn between protecting state secrets and upholding the public's right to information? The Assange saga calls for a nuanced, principled stand that upholds the freedom of the press while addressing legitimate national security concerns. It is a moment for reflection on the part of governments, the media, and the public on the essential values that should guide our actions and policies in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. As this case unfolds, it should not only be viewed through the lens of legal technicalities but as a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of freedom, responsibility, and accountability in the information age.

Q.6 What is the author’s tone in discussing the Assange case?

In a high-stakes legal drama that has captivated international attention, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces what may be his final battle against extradition to the United States. Set to commence on February 20, this critical juncture in Assange's prolonged legal saga underscores a contentious intersection of national security, freedom of the press, and human rights. U.S. prosecutors aim to try Assange on 18 counts, chiefly under the Espionage Act, for WikiLeaks' publication of a vast array of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents. These disclosures, which include the notorious 2010 release of video footage depicting the killing of civilians and journalists in Iraq by U.S. forces, have sparked a global debate on the limits of governmental transparency and accountability. Assange's protracted legal ordeal began over thirteen years ago, leading to a seven-year asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, followed by his current detention in a high-security British prison. His supporters, a diverse coalition spanning from international human rights organizations to Australian politicians and even Pope Francis, view him as a journalistic martyr targeted for exposing U.S. military misconduct and alleged war crimes. In contrast, U.S. authorities condemn Assange's actions as reckless endangerments of lives, framing the leaks as an unforgivable breach of national security rather than a public service. Assange's plight has galvanized a broad spectrum of support, underscoring the case's significance beyond the individual to the broader principles of press freedom and the public's right to know. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government, reflecting a growing international concern, has voiced support for Assange, signaling the case's diplomatic implications and its potential to strain U.S.-Australia relations.

As Assange's legal battle enters this decisive phase, the stakes extend far beyond his personal fate to fundamental questions about the balance between national security and freedom of expression. The outcome of this case could set a precedent with far-reaching implications for journalists and publishers worldwide. It poses a stark question: where should the line be drawn between protecting state secrets and upholding the public's right to information? The Assange saga calls for a nuanced, principled stand that upholds the freedom of the press while addressing legitimate national security concerns. It is a moment for reflection on the part of governments, the media, and the public on the essential values that should guide our actions and policies in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. As this case unfolds, it should not only be viewed through the lens of legal technicalities but as a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of freedom, responsibility, and accountability in the information age.

Q.7 Which statement best describes the passage’s argument structure?

In a high-stakes legal drama that has captivated international attention, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces what may be his final battle against extradition to the United States. Set to commence on February 20, this critical juncture in Assange's prolonged legal saga underscores a contentious intersection of national security, freedom of the press, and human rights. U.S. prosecutors aim to try Assange on 18 counts, chiefly under the Espionage Act, for WikiLeaks' publication of a vast array of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents. These disclosures, which include the notorious 2010 release of video footage depicting the killing of civilians and journalists in Iraq by U.S. forces, have sparked a global debate on the limits of governmental transparency and accountability. Assange's protracted legal ordeal began over thirteen years ago, leading to a seven-year asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, followed by his current detention in a high-security British prison. His supporters, a diverse coalition spanning from international human rights organizations to Australian politicians and even Pope Francis, view him as a journalistic martyr targeted for exposing U.S. military misconduct and alleged war crimes. In contrast, U.S. authorities condemn Assange's actions as reckless endangerments of lives, framing the leaks as an unforgivable breach of national security rather than a public service. Assange's plight has galvanized a broad spectrum of support, underscoring the case's significance beyond the individual to the broader principles of press freedom and the public's right to know. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government, reflecting a growing international concern, has voiced support for Assange, signaling the case's diplomatic implications and its potential to strain U.S.-Australia relations.

As Assange's legal battle enters this decisive phase, the stakes extend far beyond his personal fate to fundamental questions about the balance between national security and freedom of expression. The outcome of this case could set a precedent with far-reaching implications for journalists and publishers worldwide. It poses a stark question: where should the line be drawn between protecting state secrets and upholding the public's right to information? The Assange saga calls for a nuanced, principled stand that upholds the freedom of the press while addressing legitimate national security concerns. It is a moment for reflection on the part of governments, the media, and the public on the essential values that should guide our actions and policies in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. As this case unfolds, it should not only be viewed through the lens of legal technicalities but as a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of freedom, responsibility, and accountability in the information age.

Q.8 The passage suggests that Assange's case:

In a high-stakes legal drama that has captivated international attention, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces what may be his final battle against extradition to the United States. Set to commence on February 20, this critical juncture in Assange's prolonged legal saga underscores a contentious intersection of national security, freedom of the press, and human rights. U.S. prosecutors aim to try Assange on 18 counts, chiefly under the Espionage Act, for WikiLeaks' publication of a vast array of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents. These disclosures, which include the notorious 2010 release of video footage depicting the killing of civilians and journalists in Iraq by U.S. forces, have sparked a global debate on the limits of governmental transparency and accountability. Assange's protracted legal ordeal began over thirteen years ago, leading to a seven-year asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, followed by his current detention in a high-security British prison. His supporters, a diverse coalition spanning from international human rights organizations to Australian politicians and even Pope Francis, view him as a journalistic martyr targeted for exposing U.S. military misconduct and alleged war crimes. In contrast, U.S. authorities condemn Assange's actions as reckless endangerments of lives, framing the leaks as an unforgivable breach of national security rather than a public service. Assange's plight has galvanized a broad spectrum of support, underscoring the case's significance beyond the individual to the broader principles of press freedom and the public's right to know. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government, reflecting a growing international concern, has voiced support for Assange, signaling the case's diplomatic implications and its potential to strain U.S.-Australia relations.

As Assange's legal battle enters this decisive phase, the stakes extend far beyond his personal fate to fundamental questions about the balance between national security and freedom of expression. The outcome of this case could set a precedent with far-reaching implications for journalists and publishers worldwide. It poses a stark question: where should the line be drawn between protecting state secrets and upholding the public's right to information? The Assange saga calls for a nuanced, principled stand that upholds the freedom of the press while addressing legitimate national security concerns. It is a moment for reflection on the part of governments, the media, and the public on the essential values that should guide our actions and policies in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. As this case unfolds, it should not only be viewed through the lens of legal technicalities but as a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of freedom, responsibility, and accountability in the information age.

Q.9 What could be a potential implication of the outcome of Assange's case for journalists worldwide?

In a high-stakes legal drama that has captivated international attention, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange faces what may be his final battle against extradition to the United States. Set to commence on February 20, this critical juncture in Assange's prolonged legal saga underscores a contentious intersection of national security, freedom of the press, and human rights. U.S. prosecutors aim to try Assange on 18 counts, chiefly under the Espionage Act, for WikiLeaks' publication of a vast array of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents. These disclosures, which include the notorious 2010 release of video footage depicting the killing of civilians and journalists in Iraq by U.S. forces, have sparked a global debate on the limits of governmental transparency and accountability. Assange's protracted legal ordeal began over thirteen years ago, leading to a seven-year asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, followed by his current detention in a high-security British prison. His supporters, a diverse coalition spanning from international human rights organizations to Australian politicians and even Pope Francis, view him as a journalistic martyr targeted for exposing U.S. military misconduct and alleged war crimes. In contrast, U.S. authorities condemn Assange's actions as reckless endangerments of lives, framing the leaks as an unforgivable breach of national security rather than a public service. Assange's plight has galvanized a broad spectrum of support, underscoring the case's significance beyond the individual to the broader principles of press freedom and the public's right to know. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government, reflecting a growing international concern, has voiced support for Assange, signaling the case's diplomatic implications and its potential to strain U.S.-Australia relations.

As Assange's legal battle enters this decisive phase, the stakes extend far beyond his personal fate to fundamental questions about the balance between national security and freedom of expression. The outcome of this case could set a precedent with far-reaching implications for journalists and publishers worldwide. It poses a stark question: where should the line be drawn between protecting state secrets and upholding the public's right to information? The Assange saga calls for a nuanced, principled stand that upholds the freedom of the press while addressing legitimate national security concerns. It is a moment for reflection on the part of governments, the media, and the public on the essential values that should guide our actions and policies in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. As this case unfolds, it should not only be viewed through the lens of legal technicalities but as a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of freedom, responsibility, and accountability in the information age.

Q.10 Which of the following best summarizes the passage?