Question: The U.S. Supreme Court plunged into the politically messy issue of redrawing congressional and legislative districts Tuesday, in a case that could have profound implications for both major political parties for years to come. The high court heard oral arguments in a case brought by Democratic voters in Wisconsin. They argued that a Republican redistricting plan for the state assembly was so overtly partisan that it violated constitutional protections of freedom of speech and equal protection under the law for Wisconsin voters. A lower federal court sided with the challengers last year and against Republican state officials in Wisconsin. Officials argued Tuesday that they had not violated any constitutional rights when they drew up new boundaries for state assembly districts. "Our legislature followed traditional redistricting criteria, which is what they have been required to do and we think they followed that and that the justices will agree," Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel told reporters in front of the court following the oral arguments. The process of state legislatures redrawing congressional and legislative district boundaries has been enmeshed in politics for two centuries. Early on, the process was referred to as "gerrymandering," where one party or the other tries to gain an electoral advantage by redrawing district boundaries to maximize their voting clout. Republicans have had success in several states in redrawing congressional and legislative voting districts and that has helped them maintain their majority in the House of Representatives. Democrats have come under fire as well for partisan maps in states where they control the legislature, like Maryland and Massachusetts. During Tuesday's oral arguments, the more liberal high court justices seemed open to the case brought by Democratic voters. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said a ruling in favor of the Republican districting plan in Wisconsin would encourage others to stack the deck against their political opponents. "What becomes of the... Question: What happened after the story? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- The districts were fully redrawn
- The districts were not redrawn
- The districts were only partially redrawn
Answer: not enough information

input with options: And once again, high blood pressure is making headlines in the news: the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) have just released new guidelines about hypertension. Since this development is likely to cause confusion and concern for many, I'm writing this post to help you understand the debate and what this might mean for you and your family. By the way, if you've read any of my other blood pressure articles on this site, let me reassure you: I am not changing my clinical practice or what I recommend to others, based on the new AHA/ACC guidelines. The core principles of better blood pressure management for older adults remain the same: * Take care in how you and your doctors measure blood pressure (more on that here), * Start by aiming to get blood pressure less than 150/90 mm Hg, as recommended by these expert guidelines issued in 2017 and in 2014, * And then learn more about what are the likely benefits versus risks of aiming for more intensive BP control. Perhaps the most important thing to understand is this: treatment of high blood pressure in older adults offers "diminishing returns" as we treat BP to get lower and lower. Scientific evidence indicates that the greatest health benefit, when it comes to reducing the risk of strokes and heart attacks, is in getting systolic blood pressure from high (i.e. 160-180) down to moderate (140-150). From there, the famous SPRINT study, published in 2015, did show a further reduction in cardiovascular risk, when participants were treated to a lower systolic BP, such as a target of 120. However, this was in a carefully selected group of participants, it required taking three blood pressure medications on average, and the reduction in risk was small. As I note in my article explaining SPRINT Senior, in participants aged 75 or older, pushing to that lower goal was associated with an estimated 1-in-27 chance of avoiding a cardiovascular event. (The benefit was even smaller in adults aged 50-75.) Question: What is the author's feelings towards the AHA/ACC? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- They support the research they are doing
- not enough information
- They don't always agree with their conclusions
- They have a lot of respect towards them
output: not enough information

Q: Larisa Grollemond is conducting a comparative study of illuminations in the Mirror of History (Speculum historiale, Miroir historial) as a graduate intern in the Manuscripts Department of the Getty Museum. The massive text, compiled in the 1200s by friar Vincent of Beauvais and translated into French in the 14th century by Jean de Vignay, attempts to compile all of world history from creation to the present into a single source. "If our twenty-first-century way of understanding everything is to put it on the Internet," she says, "the medieval way of understanding was to create big encyclopedic texts that try to encompass all of human history and biblical history in an organized way." Larisa, who recently completed her PhD at the University of Pennsylvania with a focus on 15th-century French manuscript culture, is focusing on the Getty volumes' unique program of illuminations. The French translation of the Miroir historial exists in some 40 known copies, and while the text remains mostly unchanged from copy to copy, the illuminations vary dramatically, both in how scenes are depicted and in which episodes artists choose to depict. Larisa has decided to focus on the evolution of depictions of India and its inhabitants across these various copies, because the Getty copy, which dates to 1475, contains images that are different from earlier illuminated versions. While other copies don't dedicate more than one or two illustrations to India, the Getty copy has several that draw upon the medieval tradition of the "monstrous peoples" as well as knowledge of geography, materials, and customs newly gained through trade. This work ties into broader scholarly efforts to shed light on globalization in the Middle Ages. "Scholars of medieval art have generally thought of Western Europe as the center and non-European places as the periphery. There has now been a revision of that view," says Larisa. "These manuscripts provide an interesting glimpse into how late-medieval Europeans made sense of their world, including... Question: Why did Larisa focus on the evolution of depictions of India? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- because the text from the French manuscript focuses on India
- not enough information
- because the Getty copy has different images of India than earlier versions
- because it was compiled by Vincent of Beauvais

A:
because the Getty copy has different images of India than earlier versions