Question: 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... According to the study, when do people die at a younger age? A. after consuming mostly carbohydrates their whole life B. during the consumption of large amounts of carbohydrates C. not enough information D. before consuming mostly carbohydrates their whole life
Answer: A

Question: SINGAPORE What now? That is the question from the White House in Washington to the Blue House in Seoul and perhaps also inside the Ryongsong Residence in Pyongyang. Following the historic handshake here between a U.S. president and a North Korean leader, who inked their names to a document with vague but compelling promises, the question emanating from Sentosa's Capella Hotel was what will actually change on the Korean peninsula? Moments after the summit between Donald Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong Un concluded, VOA contributor Greta Van Susteren and I spent a few minutes with the U.S. president and his secretary of state, at the Capella. Trump was elated and within the hour would make a surprising announcement suspending "provocative" joint U.S.-South Korean drills on the Korean peninsula. "We had a great chemistry," the president, speaking to Van Susteren, said of himself and Kim. "We will do business." Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told us, "it's a great day." The president has essentially handed off to Pompeo the hard work of turning a sparse declaration on denuclearization into something truly transformative. Many will question whether Pompeo, who a decade ago was running an oilfield equipment company, is truly the man for the task. In Pompeo's background, however, are indications of his capabilities: First in his class at the U.S. Military Academy, time served on the House of Representative's intelligence committee, a brief stint as director of the Central Intelligence Agency and two meetings with Kim in Pyongyang. Perhaps he is now as astute as any American official on piecing together the Pyongyang puzzle. This correspondent an observer of the Korean peninsula over five decades, resident in Seoul for several years and once given the opportunity to frankly converse for a week (in 2013) in the North with KPA officers has gleaned some insight into the world's most reclusive state. Rarely can any collection of a few hundred words adequately encapsulate the geo-political conundrum. It is... The interview probably lasted: A. under a minute B. not enough information C. about an hour D. all night
Answer: C

Question: "You either change of life or you change of man" When I was married, my wife had a very complicated life to handle outside. She was always stressed from her studies, pressure and job, so she would go out, most oftenly with me, to places and times we shouldn't have been. She would just decide, in the middle of the night, even as early as 2 in the morning that we should just race the city, see places She always had those cravings to do stuff at strange times, getting to sport events with me at the other bit of the country This crazy kind of life got us in a big lot of troubles. People trying rape her, attack us and much many more. it was happening too often and I often had to be quite violent to these people so she stays in one piece. I had to fix a lot of crap in order for her to live fully her fantasy. But I was more worried for her than me and I wanted us settle down, calm and have children we could raise peacefully. There was that one night where, we both came back very late from a sport competition, we had to travel dangerous roads very late at night sometimes by bus, foot and other times subway. At one point that night, two drug addicts tried to rape her, so I did what I had to do, but still I didn't kill them. Then I shoved her and I really mean shove, inside a taxi, got in there too and asked it back home. When I arrived, she was denying the danger, denying anything wrong with her way to behave. So I really snapped, I just pulled my ring and chains away, threw them on the table in front of her and I told her the sentence I mentionned up there. I was harsh on her that night in my words and symbol but I just couldn't take that way anymore Who is the wife? A. A woman whose husband fears for B. A woman thriving on nightly risks C. A woman with strange cravings D. not enough information
Answer:
D