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 is the author Options: - a participant - a researcher - not enough information - a student
not enough information

(Question)
Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: This week I shot my Interview with Claire Bridge. Myself and Riah travelled, I would say all the way out too Wheelers Hill, but it's really not that far away, unless you live on the North side, which we both do. Riah and I carried our gear on two trains and 1 bus to get to Claire's studio out in Wheelers Hill. I can see why Claire lives here as it's a pretty beautiful place, it's still suburban but there are trills, hills and birds everywhere, and for someone that's passionate about the environment I can see why she lives here. Meeting Claire was awesome, after having spoken via phone or email for so long, it was nice to speak to her in person. The filming of the interview went extremely smoothly, I'd put this down to having planned out everything, such as all the questions I was going to ask prior to the interview. By this stage I had helped Riah film as well as Elise and it was noticeable how much smoother Riah's interview went because she had pre-planned her questions. Rather than spending an hour asking various questions that you might not use anyway, it's much more efficient to spend 20 minutes covering exactly what you want to cover. By this stage I'd also had practise setting up lights, doing sound and getting camera shots for people's portraits so I already knew everything I wanted to shoot. Our setup was pretty simple, two large lights, one on Claire's front right and one on Claire's front left, two Canon EOS 60D DSLR's at different positions (one straight on, one to the side), a Sony H2N handy recorder and a lapel mic. Everything ran super smoothly, we did the interview first then myself and Riah shot various things in Claire's studio. Whilst shooting various things in Claire's studio we also got a chance to both speak to her which was nice, discussing what it is like to be a woman in Melbourne's art scene and finding out who some of her favourite artists were. Overall the experience was also, I have a lot of friends who are artists so I hope to do more artist portraits in the future. Question: Why did the interview go so smoothly? Options: - because Claire was nice - because the author and Riah spent time planning ahead for everything - because it was easy to get the shots - not enough information
(Answer)
because the author and Riah spent time planning ahead for everything

Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: Miguel Diaz-Canel has been named Cuba's next president, marking the first time in 60 years the communist-run country has had a president outside the Castro family. The 57-year-old Diaz-Canel, the only candidate for the job, won a five-year term, according to state media. The move was not expected to usher in drastic change. Upon being sworn in Thursday, Diaz-Canel promised to continue the Castros' socialist revolution. "The mandate given by the people to this house is to give continuity to the Cuban revolution in a crucial historic moment," Diaz-Canel said. Diaz-Canel, a former first vice president, appears to be socially liberal and is considered an acceptable successor to the retiring elderly leaders who fought in the revolution. He succeeds 86-year-old Raul Castro, who is resigning after 10 years in office. Raul Castro's late brother, Fidel, served as prime minister and president after the armed Cuban Revolution in 1959 until he became ill in 2006. While the leadership transition is elevating younger leaders, Raul Castro and other older revolutionaries are expected to retain their power, due to their hold on the Communist Party. Castro will remain party leader. "Raul Castro, as first secretary of the Communist Party, will lead the decisions about the future of the country,'' Diaz-Canel said in his speech. "Cuba needs him, providing ideas and proposals for the revolutionary cause, orienting and alerting us about any error or deficiency, teaching us, and always ready to confront imperialism.'' Castro told members of the National Assembly that Diaz-Canel could serve two years as president, and that he will likely eventually take his place as head of the Communist Party. Diaz-Canel will face pressure to bring greater prosperity to the Caribbean country and revitalize its economy, which is weaker than it was in 1985 when it was supported by the former Soviet Union. Since Fidel and Raul Castro led a guerrilla movement that overthrew a dictatorship and took over the country in 1959, the name Castro has been... Question: Why is the Cuban economy weaker than in 1985? Options: - not enough information - Because the Cuban Revolution had not occured. - Because Miguel Diaz-Canel was not president? - Because the Soviet Union no longer supports it.
Because the Soviet Union no longer supports it.