(Question)
The wildfire smoke cleared on the morning of our family wedding, just in time for the bride and groom to say their vows overlooking coal harbour. We took this as a sign that we needed to book our Vancouver seaplane flight, to really explore the azure harbour waters and take in an eagle-eyed view of this city. I suppose it was ok oh, who am I kidding, the harbour is spectacular. Let me also point out that none of these images are touched by editing. Like 99% of my images in this blog (the other 1% is cropping and making slight adjustments), these are entirely un-doctored. We began as all good things do, by hanging out in their airport lounge, offered a mini-pastry and a hot beverage I adventurously went for an 'English Mist', an Earl-Grey Latte to make myself feel a little more soothed boarding a tiny propeller plane (note: it didn't work.) With a slightly chaotic boarding process (more noticeable after such a serene start) we were too busy sorting out the seats to realise that we had hopped on board, and within in seconds it seemed, our pilot had lifted off smoothly in a flurry of water foam. As we began to watch the world turn into a Lilliput version of itself, we barely blinked for watching beautiful vistas unfold. From tiny little islands (the above Passage Island technically belongs to West Vancouver, known as the Hollywood suburb of the city, and a couple of the homes are allegedly owned by celebrities) where the residents enjoy views of downtown Vancouver, the University of British Columbia campus, Vancouver Island, and the snow-capped mountains of Howe Sound to the fjords all the way along the Sea to Sky Highway to Whistler. They just scatter along the horizon, like a giant has skittered his toys along an azure sheet of silk. We looped around, looking back over the stunning Stanley Park and towering grid of Vancouver downtown buildings. From prehistoric forests, to gleaming silver confections of modernity. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: The seaplane excursion probably lasted: Options: - Five minutes. - One hour. - Two days. - not enough information
(Answer)
One hour.

(Question)
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... According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: After the end of the text, how do the professors probably feel about their retirements? Options: - not enough information - excited about them - worried about them - hopeful about them
(Answer)
worried about them

(Question)
Eating less food at night time is sensible advice for someone trying to lose weight. The reason often given is that if eat you too much food at night, the body will store all those excess kilojoules as fat because we're inactive until the next day. The reason sounds plausible, but if it was one hundred percent true then world hunger could be solved by just feeding people one meal at night time. What really matters is how much is eaten over days and weeks for weight gain or weight loss, not so much when it is eaten. There is merit though in advice to eat less at night time as it can help a person to cut back on the total quantity of food eaten. Eating lots of food in the evening can also be a marker for unhealthy dietary habits, especially if much of that extra food is going to fuel couch surfing exploits. So even though advice to eat less at night time seems logical, it hasn't actually been well tested by science to see how effective it can be for losing weight. Filling this gap, a short-term study involving 29 healthy men looked at how 2 weeks of restricted night time eating fared against 2 weeks of 'normal' evening eating. Advice on restricting night eating was very clear: avoid any food or drink containing kilojoules between the hours of 7 pm and 6 am the next morning. No other changes to the participants' diet or lifestyle was required so each person was free to eat whatever they wished during the day time hours until early evening. Twenty seven of the twenty nine people complied with following this advice for 2 weeks as well as the 2 week control period. Eating at night a waistline hazard So did people eat less when restricting night time eating? Yes, equal to 1000 kilojoules (about 250 Calories) per day less than during their normal eating pattern. This small energy difference was enough to see the men lose 0.4 kg over the 2 week restriction period, and gain 0.6 kg over the 2 week control period. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: When should people eat less if they are trying to lose weight? Options: - not enough information - in the morning - at night time - after breakfast
(Answer)
at night time