input: OPTIONS:
- Higher anxiety in the higher education sector
- Academic staff "raising their game" to improve higher education
- 34% of academic staff employed on fixed term contracts
- not enough information Now, answer this question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: It will come as no surprise to those working in the UK's higher education (HE) sector that universities are currently suffused with anxiety. The University and College Union (UCU) has recently been in dispute with employers over proposed changes to the USS pension scheme, and the most sustained period of industrial action in the sector's history has highlighted the fears staff have for the security of their futures post-retirement. Such unprecedented strike action needs to be situated within the wider context of a public sector undergoing transformation: while the concept remains contested, the influence of "neoliberal" ideas on universities can most clearly be seen in Success as a Knowledge Economy the government white paper that preceded the 2017 Higher Education and Research Act which states: "Competition between providers in any market incentivises them to raise their game, offering consumers a greater choice of more innovative and better quality products and services at lower cost. Higher education is no exception." Yet what might "raising our game" mean for academic staff? The university has been described as an "anxiety machine": the creeping marketisation of the sector along with pressure to recruit students (now "consumers"), increasing managerialism, and the implementation of processes of audit such as the REF and TEF to evaluate performance have arguably contributed to a progressively anxious landscape in which to labour. In 2016/17, 34% of academic staff were employed on fixed-term contracts a figure likely to be disputed by the UCU, since in 2016 it estimated the extent of casualisation in the sector to be closer to 54% once atypical contracts had been taken into consideration. In addition to pressures facing many staff in universities such as time-management, meeting growing employer expectations, and the evaluation of performance "casualised" contracts present particular challenges for those facing employment uncertainty: in a material sense, this can be a case of keeping up with... Question: What happened after the recent UCU dispute? Answer:
A:
output: Higher anxiety in the higher education sector

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Dietary supplements are big business, with around half of the Australian population using at least one type per year; most commonly a multivitamin and mineral pill. Many people take supplements as a form of dietary insurance in case they are not meeting their nutrient needs from foods alone. Others take them as a form of health insurance to protect against certain diseases. Some just take them out of habit. Supplements do have a role to play in some situations. People with a diagnosed deficiency, those with malabsorption conditions, women planning pregnancy, and people with very poor diets all can benefit from specific nutrient supplementation. But what about the benefit of supplements across the broad population? The mantra of most health professionals, which is even etched on the label of many supplements, is that supplements may only be of assistance if dietary sources are lacking. To see if this is supported by solid evidence, a systematic review of 63 clinical trials involving some form of supplementation in non-pregnant adults was carried out by a team of medical researchers. The clinical trials were broad in their nature with many nutrients studied including vitamins A, B6, B12, C, D and E; folic acid; calcium; selenium, omega-3 fatty acids; ginkgo biloba; glucosamine; saw palmetto; and milk thistle. All of the studies were randomised controlled trials and evaluated a range of health outcomes including risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, bone fractures, cognitive function and all-cause mortality. From the 63 studies, no benefit was seen in 45 studies with 10 of these showing a trend towards harm and just two showing a trend towards a benefit. Of the remaining studies, four showed harm with a greater risk of cancer with beta-carotene and a higher risk of fractures with a once-yearly dose of vitamin D. One study showed a lower risk of cancer with selenium supplementation, but this was not validated in much larger trials. Twelve studies showed a benefit and these mostly involved vitamin D... Question: When were the results of the trials analyzed? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- After the completion of the trials
- Before the trials started
- After diagnosing deficiencies

Answer: After the completion of the trials

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: If you turned on the TV towards the end of 2002 you could have been forgiven for thinking that Britain had gone absolutely horseshit mental. Every week, it seemed, another pretty young girl from a nice family, who was happy and popular and always did well at school, was being kidnapped or murdered by what the Sun newspaper cheerfully termed 'evil paedo scum'. Naming and shaming was as popular a feature in the Murdoch press as Page Three girls and discounted holidays to Butlin's. Of course you can't blame parents for wanting to keep their children safe; that's pretty much the job description of a parent. And, on the face of it, the tabloids were doing a public service in warning us about the paedophile menace lurking in our midst. The problem came when it turned out that a huge number of these concerned tabloid-reading parents were also absolute fucking morons. For every story of an actual sex offender being driven from their house by a baying mob there was one like that of Dr Yvette Cloete, a doctor at the Royal Gwent Hospital in Newport, South Wales, who returned home from work to find that a group of 'concerned parents' had daubed the word 'paedo' on her front door in bright red paint. Dr Cloete was a consultant paediatrician. Easy mistake. If you're an absolute fucking moron. And so it was that one hung-over morning, after reading yet another story about vigilantes who had threatened to stone Maxine Carr, the girlfriend of Soham killer Ian Huntley, to death during her high-profile trial for perverting the course of justice, I decided to set up a website parodying this collective national madness. The result of two or three hours of hung-over labour was thinkofthechildren.co.uk, a spoof campaign site which claimed to offer a handy online guide for crazy vigilantes of all stripes to co-ordinate their crazy vigilante efforts. Although there are a few parts of the site I'm still a bit proud of, the majority of it was, I freely admit, satire of the lowest order. Question: What did the narrator do before setting up their website? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- They went to the paediatrician.
- not enough information
- They went to school.
- They read a story about Maxine Carr.

Answer:
They read a story about Maxine Carr.