input: OPTIONS:
- researchers in the PAD study
- not enough information
- researchers in the POP study
- researchers in the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study Now, answer this 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... Question: Who found that global diets consisted of 61 percent energy coming from carbohydrates and 24 percent energy from fats? === The answer to the above question is
A:
output: researchers in the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study

input: OPTIONS:
- Friday afternoon
- not enough information
- Friday morning
- 2016 Now, answer this question: U.S. President Donald Trump has blocked the release of a Democratic rebuttal to a Republican memo alleging FBI abuses of power during an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. In a letter released Friday, White House counsel Don McGahn said Trump had decided not to declassify the Democratic memo "because the memorandum contains numerous properly classified and especially sensitive passages." The president himself expounded on that explanation Saturday on Twitter. "The Democrats sent a very political and long response memo which they knew, because of sources and methods (and more), would have to be heavily redacted, whereupon they would blame the White House for lack of transparency. Told them to re-do and send back in proper form!" Rep. Steny Hoyer, the No. 2-ranking Democrat in the House, released a statement late Friday saying, "It is deeply disturbing that President Trump has blocked the release" of the Democrat-written memo. He said that after Trump on Feb. 2 released "a one-sided, misleading memo written by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, it is only appropriate that Americans see all the facts." McGahn's letter to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes asked for revisions in the document before it could be released. Nunes released a statement late Friday, saying, "I had warned that the Democratic memo contains many sources and methods ... it's no surprise that these agencies recommended against publishing the memo without redactions." McGahn's statement said because of the "public interest in transparency in these unprecedented circumstances, the president has directed that Justice Department personnel be available to give technical assistance to the committee" in its efforts to revise the document. Trump had until the end of Friday to decide whether to declassify the memo, written by Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The president last week authorized the release of the Republican version of the memo, which... Question: When did Rep. Steny Hoyer release a statement regarding Donald Trump's decision to block the memo? === The answer to the above question is
A:
output: Friday afternoon

input: OPTIONS:
- Thinks the deal is good for North Korea
- That it will be expensive for North Korea to denuclearize
- Thinks it was cheap for Ukraine to denuclearize
- not enough information Now, answer this question: SEOUL Arms control experts estimate that the dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear program could take a decade to complete, and cost $20 billion, if a nuclear agreement is reached between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un when they meet in Singapore on June 12. "The hard work has not yet begun, and it is gong to take sustained energy on the part of the United States, South Korea, Japan, China and North Korea. It's going to be a multiyear long process," said Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington. President Trump has said he expects a "very positive result" from the North Korea nuclear summit, but he also said it will likely be the beginning of a process to resolve differences over the extent of the North's denuclearization, and the specifics regarding what sanctions relief, economic aid and security guarantees would be offered in return. U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Sunday that North Korea would only receive sanctions relief after it takes "verifiable and irreversible steps to denuclearization." This position aligns closer to the Kim government's stance that denuclearization measures and concessions be matched action for action. And it backs away from demands made by some in the president's national security team that Pyongyang quickly and unilaterally dismantle all its weapons of mass destruction before any concessions would be offered. North Korea is estimated to have 20 to 80 nuclear warheads, both known and covert nuclear research and processing sites, and thousands of ballistic missiles that can be launched from mobile vehicles, and submarine based launchers have been tested in recent years. With such an extensive nuclear arsenal it could cost $20 billion to achieve the U.S. goal of complete, irreversible, and verifiable nuclear dismantlement (CVID), according to a recent study conducted by Kwon Hyuk-chul, a Kookmin University professor of security strategy. Kwon based his assessment in part on past nuclear deals... Question: Kwon Hyuk-chui probably believes === The answer to the above question is
A:
output:
That it will be expensive for North Korea to denuclearize