Write the right answer to the question based on the context passage.

[Q]: "Maybe we're being too harsh with the letter," said Janine.
"Hon, as his parents we have a responsibility to his well being," said Bob.
"I know but I just think he doesn't need this added pressure."
"Jan, I'll be damned if I'm gonna support and house a drug addict."
"I just think maybe he's going through tough times or something. He told me the other day he wanted to see a therapist."
"Hmm."
"Maybe there's something going on we don't understand. I mean didn't he seem a little paranoid to you today at lunch?"
"Paranoia is a side-effect of the marijuana."
"Well I still think we are being a little harsh, I mean, we can't just throw our son out on the street."
"Babe, its our job to be harsh when it comes to this kind of stuff. It's for his own good. Either he chooses to keep living rent free in the condo without the pot or he chooses to ruin his life."
"I know but don't you think we should let this little phase run its course? I mean, we're not entirely innocent ourselves. Eventually he's gonna want to stop smoking pot,"
"I don't know if he is, Jan. He's expressed to me several times that he has no interest in quitting."
"He's said that to me too."
"Well I think that's a pretty big red flag, don't you?"
"Yes."
"He needs to get his priorities in order and realize that drugs aren't gonna do him any good. If we have to force him to do that then that's what has to be done. I mean, tell me you haven't had any difficulty falling asleep at night with the notion that our sons are drug addicts."
"Well at least Ben has a job and is paying his own rent."
"I know but those people he hangs out with, Mack and Allison, those dopers that spend their time smoking weed, they...they're our age, and did you see their house, the stacks of books and newspapers and the marijuana pipes laying on the coffee table? It sickens me that there are people out there like that." Question: Who thinks the letter is too harsh?
[A]: Jan

[Q]: I lost my baby boy at 31 weeks of pregnancy in February 2013.
My heart shattered into a million pieces that weekend in February.
I knew that I wanted the chance to bring home another live, healthy baby in my arms.
I had some medical issues that would concern doctors during a uncomplicated pregnancy and would put me at high risk if, and that at the time was a big if I was able to get pregnant, and could I make it past the second trimester.
I had doctors who supported my decision to try again, but my body wasn't co operating.
2015. I got pregnant, straight on the medication I needed, lots of blood tests.
Got a horrible sinking feeling something went wrong at the 6 week stage, bleeding at 8 weeks. At 9weeks of pregnancy, got a scan and no heartbeat was found. I choose the d&c operation, I couldn't deal with seeing the miscarriage blood for days.
I tried to convince myself to give up, move on. Wasn't an easy thing to do, but the depression and sadness wasn't fair to my 6 year old son. He needed his mummy who was always sad, in his mind.
About 6 months later, I was having a scan. This time, I had a strong heart beat on screen.
The pregnancy was extremely high risk, consultant led, daily injections, scans every 2 weeks from 18 weeks. No guarantees of a good outcome.
Planned c section at 38 weeks. Healthy baby girl. I was lucky, I got the chance to have my happy ever after.
Was it worth the heartache and infertility caused by stress - yes
Was it worth the terrifying 34 weeks of pregnancy- yes
Do I miss and wish the baby boy I lost at 31 weeks was here - every day
For me, being bloody minded and stubborn worked out for me. Question: Who didn't deserve to see the writer be sad and depressed
[A]: the writer's 6 year old son

[Q]: Called the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study, this was a very large observational study looking at the link between fat and carbohydrate consumption and longevity in 18 countries across 5 continents. Running for 7 years and involving over 135,000 people, this was a very big study so its conclusions are right to take notice of.
The key finding from the work that attracted the most media attention was that a high carbohydrate diet was linked with a higher risk of earlier mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to a lower risk of earlier mortality.
Digging deeper into the study, the research team found that global diets consisted of 61 percent energy coming from carbohydrates and 24 percent energy from fats. And while those in the highest carbohydrate consumption group (a whopping 77 percent of energy) had a higher risk of earlier death, it wasn't cardiovascular disease they were dying from. What those other causes of death were exactly is unclear. Perhaps getting hit by a car running for a Mars Bar was one of them as a recent commenter on my Facebook page theorised.
A paradigm shift? Not quite
Does this study turn on its head 'everything we knew about nutrition?' Not quite. And here's why.
Before the PURE study, there were many studies showing the opposite link between carbohydrates and longevity. So, when a conflicting study comes along, this grabs the media spotlight for the day.
Here is just one example a major systematic review and meta-analysis from 2013 involving 17 individual studies and over 242,000 people showing a higher risk of earlier mortality as carbohydrate intake decreased. And this is the problem at times with observational research in that two studies can give polar opposite results so the findings of the PURE study should be seen through this filter.
I'm not going to pick apart the PURE study for its flaws. Such issues are consistent across all observational studies no matter if the conclusions support consensus views or not. What is of value to look at is the positive messages the study gave and how when you look at the full research field, it takes you back to some pretty sensible advice. Question: Who was eating?
[A]:
the participants in the study