I guess Tibet isn't mentioned on purpose to make it more difficult. I disagree anyway with choosing the description only according to what we like. What about all the cities in the USA and the horrible genocides?
Agree that saying "City in Tibet" would make it too easy. The picture would become irrelevant; it would just be "Name the only city you've ever heard of that's in Tibet."
And can we accept "a city in traditional Chumash and Tongva territory" for Los Angeles, given the horrific genocide of the Indigenous peoples in the United States?
I think given Tibet's disputed status and seizure by the Chinese means that it probably shouldn't be included as a 'city in China'. Describing it as such inevitably risks sounding like validation.
China's behaviour in Tibet does not validate the behaviour of the Dalai Lama before China's occupation. There's a good reason only the ruling class and the monks joined the Dalai Lama's failed coup, ordinary people were delighted that China had saved them from the brutal rule of the lamas. It's similar to the situation in Iran; just because the current regime is a bad one, doesn't mean the one before it was good.
I believe we in the UK would call that an embankment, or maybe a dyke at a push. That said, 'drove my Chevy to the embankment, but the embankment was dry' has less of a lyrical ring to it.
So pretentious that non-Americans should know the shape of an American state. In what other country in the world do we know the shape of a state/territory?
I wouldn't want to predict that a British person could recognise the shape of an arbitrary British county. But Louisiana has such a distinctive coast, anyone might recognise it as the location of New Orleans...then it is one more small step to knowing the state name.
It's fine, it's just a bit weird. I did enjoy the quiz :-)
Embankment can be natural, so I think that's why the distinction.