Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: 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? Options: - researchers in the PAD study - not enough information - researchers in the POP study - researchers in the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study
researchers in the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study

(Question)
Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: Young undocumented immigrants seeking permanent status in the United States received an unexpected boost Thursday on Capitol Hill as a small group of House Republicans mounted a last-minute effort to bring up an immigration vote in Congress. The group of eight Republicans some freed from political considerations by upcoming retirements and others facing tough re-elections races defied their own party leadership, quickly persuading 10 more Republicans to sign on to a petition that would force debate on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. With all 193 Democrats expected to sign on, Republicans will have to persuade just seven more members of their own party to join the petition to trigger a vote on several immigration bills on the House floor. But Republican leadership said the effort would be wasted if the end result is a presidential veto. "I think it's important for us to come up with a solution that the president can support," House Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters Thursday. These types of petitions are rare and seen as a threat to leadership's ability to direct legislative action. "It's better to use the legislative process," Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters Wednesday. But that argument appears to be losing sway with House members who see an opportunity for legislative action in a mid-term election year. The growing group of House Republicans are joining Democratic colleagues who have long criticized Ryan for not bringing immigration bills up for a vote. "This is about making sure we're not consolidating power in the White House," said Representative Mia Love, a Republican from Utah and one of the first lawmakers to sign petition. The immigration issue had all but died after an effort to pass a DACA fix collapsed in the U.S. Senate earlier this year. The program has been the focus of fierce negotiations on Capitol Hill since last September, when President Donald Trump announced he was ending the 2012 Obama-era program and called for a legislative fix. Question: After the end of this story, DACA probably is: Options: - fixed with a legislative fix - not enough information - restarted again - completely over
(Answer)
completely over

Question: Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: President Donald Trump often likes to point out how different he is from his White House predecessors in terms of style and substance. But it is unlikely any past president would envy the legal challenges facing Trump, from the Russia investigation to Stormy Daniels to the scrutiny law enforcement is giving his personal lawyer, Michael Cohen. On Tuesday it was a night of pomp and glamor at the White House as President Donald Trump and Mrs. Trump welcomed French President Macron and his wife for a state dinner. The two presidents got along famously during their White House meetings. The only damper on the day came when both men were in the Oval Office and a reporter asked Trump about the legal difficulties facing his longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen. "Mr. President, what about Michael Cohen? Are you considering a pardon for Michael Cohen?" asked ABC correspondent Jonathan Karl. After a pause, the president responded. "Stupid question," he said dismissively. Cohen is under scrutiny for a payment to an adult film star. Stormy Daniels says it was hush money to keep her quiet about a brief affair she had with Trump in 2006, a claim the president has denied. Trump has frequently complained about the recent FBI raids on Cohen's home and office and the ongoing Russia probe led by special counsel Robert Mueller. Earlier this month Trump spoke up during a meeting with military officials at the White House. "Here we are talking about Syria, we are talking about a lot of serious things with the greatest fighting force ever, and I have this witch hunt constantly going on for over 12 months now." Several legal analysts have said the increased scrutiny of Trump's long relationship with Cohen could become a serious problem for the president. "There has been no suggestions that Cohen has nothing that he could say, which suggests that they know that Cohen actually does possess information that could be damaging to Trump or the Trump organization more generally as a legal matter," said George Washington University Law... Question: Why was the president in the oval office? Options: - To smoke a post dinner cigar with the french president - A post dinner meeting with the press and macron - To sign a treaty with the french president - not enough information
Answer:
A post dinner meeting with the press and macron