Deciding to go on a diet is easy, but sticking to a diet is not easy! So, when facing that challenge, it is important to know how to reach your weight-loss goal. Of course, you have to decide you want to lose weight and be committed to doing so; then, you must stick to your guns and stay motivated or the goal will never be realized. There is no magic bullet, but there are two important tips that can help you reach your weight-loss goal. #1 Take It a Week at a Time You must break your ultimate goal into smaller chunks and have bench marks that will indicate you are moving in the right direction. According to the Mayo Clinic, "Over the long term, it's best to aim for losing 1 to 2 pounds (0.5 to 1 kilogram) a week." When you have a realistic weekly weight-loss target, you will be more confident in your efforts and you will know exactly what you are going to measure at the end of each week. Your long-term goal may be 40 pounds, but take it "one week at a time" (1 to 2 pounds/week = 20 to 30 weeks) In addition to choosing a healthy diet that fits your lifestyle and current health conditions, plus a solid commitment to stay with it, don't forget to get plenty of rest and exercise. . BUT . . . the primary target should be the number of pounds you plan to lose each week. That target should be clear and realistic. If it is, you should be able to stick to your weight loss program and enjoy success week after week, after week. AND, feel good in the process. If you are not hitting your target, be willing to look closely at what you are doing, or not doing and figure out why you are not reaching your weekly target. Maybe the target you set was not sensible or reasonable; or, maybe you are putting too much pressure on yourself. Honest introspection is a good way to see what you are really capable of doing and then, you can develop or choose a plan that is suitable for your unique lifestyle. Question: Think about your goals === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- before you diet
- not enough information
- after you diet
- during your diet
before you diet

It has become increasingly common for academics to use social media to communicate with wider audiences. Twitter, like many other social platforms, typically measures success in terms of numbers of followers, likes and retweets, but this only tells us something about the spreading of messages but not necessarily whether the content of the messages is understood or embraced. One way to ascertain this is through network and language analysis, which, used together, can tell us how effective the communication is. Economists tweet less, mention fewer people and have fewer conversations with strangers than a comparable group of experts in the sciences, and use less accessible language with words that are more complex, with more abbreviations and with a more distant tone. Their tweets are less personal and less inclusive than those used by scientists. This is what appeared in April 2017 when we gathered data on tens of thousands of tweets from the Twitter accounts of both the top 25 economists and 25 scientists as identified by IDEAS and Science, including the top three economists at the time, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Erik Brynjolfsson and, on the other side, the top three scientists, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, and Richard Dawkins. At that time those accounts covered roughly two thirds of all the following. The timing is significant because 2016 has been declared the year of post-truth politics, the year in which appeals to emotions (pathos) superseded the significance of factual evidence-based information (logos), affecting people's constructions and interpretations of events. This has been accompanied by the growing prominence of political "alt" movements (e.g. UKIP, the Alt-right) and their aggressive, provocative, and populist narratives, and "fake news" leading to political shock events such as Brexit and the Trump election. The relatively low traction of economists in these public debates has been and continues to be an important issue. Does the public not trust economists? Don't they understand... Question: Why was paul analyzed === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- because he's in economics
- because he is famous
- because he's smart

Answer: because he is famous

In recent weeks, the investigation into possible collusion between President Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia has intensified, raising the prospect that the probe could become an issue in advance of the November midterm congressional elections. Former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort made another appearance in federal court in Washington Wednesday, where he pleaded not guilty to the latest round of charges brought by special counsel Robert Mueller. Last week, Rick Gates, Manafort's former deputy, pleaded guilty to lying to prosecutors and is now cooperating with the investigation. In mid-February, 13 Russians were indicted in connection with election meddling, which deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein described as an effort to "promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy. We must not allow them to succeed." Congressional inquiries also continue. Hope Hicks, the White House communications director and a longtime Trump aide, was the latest figure to testify before a congressional committee on the Russia probe. Hicks declined to answer some questions before a closed session of the House Intelligence Committee, frustrating several Democrats. "This is not executive privilege. This is executive stonewalling," said ranking committee Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff. But there was more pushback from the White House this week. President Trump fired off a series of tweets dismissing the probe as a "WITCH HUNT." "They have had this phony cloud over this administration, over our government," Trump told reporters at the White House last month. "And it has hurt our government, it does hurt our government. It is a Democrat hoax." Democrats reject that view, including Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. "I continue to believe that this is the most important thing that I will work on in my whole public career, and getting the whole truth out is extraordinarily important," he said. Warner's committee is also investigating possible... Question: After the end of her testimony, it is very likely that Hope Hicks: === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- is not cooperating with the investigation
- is facing legal trouble for refusing to answer some questions
- not enough information
- has had experience in executive stonewalling
is not cooperating with the investigation