We gave Tiger swimming lessons in our plastic wading pool. I taught the kitten the way Pa taught me: I threw him into water where he could not stand, and I watched, ready to grab him if he went under. Tiger did not thrash desperately like me. He merely paddled urgently for the edge of the plastic pool with his head high and his thin legs churning. Little Bit said, "Dog paddle," and we all laughed. "Tiger paddle," I said, and we all laughed some more, even Jordy. That was probably when Ma noticed the kitten swimming lessons and stopped them. Our swimming lessons happened in two places. When Pa took us, we went to Hawkins Springs behind Mrs. DeLyons' Fountain of Youth Motor Hotel. When Ma took us, we drove to Mermaid Springs State Park, where we would sometimes meet Mr. Drake. I liked Mermaid Springs better because I felt safe there. Ma could not swim, so she never made me jump off a dock into deep water, and she always insisted that I wear an orange styrofoam cylinder on my back like a skindiver or spaceman. Ma usually sat on a towel on the grass near the beach, reading a magazine or a book while tanning her legs. Every now and then she would call to us not to go too far or not to splash each other. When she wore her one-piece red swimming suit, she would come in up to her waist, then lower herself to her shoulders, being careful not to get her hair wet. On the rarest occasions, she would wear a swimming cap and float on her back in the shallow water. Often she stayed in her shorts and shirt, adding sunglasses and removing shoes as her concession to summer and the beach. Question: Who was probably Mr. Drake? Options: - Ma's friend - someone taking lessons - not enough information - the swimming teacher === The correct answer is
the swimming teacher

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: How long did the PURE study last? Options: - probably a few months to years - probably a few weeks - probably a few days - not enough information === The correct answer is
probably a few months to years

*Question*
WHITE HOUSE U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday met for 80 minutes in the Oval Office with a general he described as the second most powerful man in North Korea. Afterward, Trump told reporters on the White House South Lawn that the June 12 summit in Singapore between him and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Un, was back on. Trump, however, sought to quell some of the high expectations, saying the summit would "be a beginning" and subsequent discussions were likely to be needed to get Pyongyang to agree to denuclearization. "We're not going to go in and sign something on June 12th, and we never were," he said. "We're going to start a process." Trump declared he "never said it happens in one meeting," but that it "will ultimately be a successful process." Asked by VOA News whether the North Koreans had committed to complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization, Trump replied only that "we talked about a lot of things." 'Take your time' The president said he told Kim Yong Chol, the former head of North Korean military intelligence, "Take your time. We can go fast. We can go slowly." The president made clear that sanctions on North Korea would not be lifted, however, until the country agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal. As the negotiations over the Singapore summit play out in public, there is a sense among some observers that Trump and Kim Jong Un each have a clear sense of the deal they ultimately want to strike. Less clear is whether the U.S. and North Korean visions can match up in any meaningful way. "Singapore might be the first time people will have to put their cards on the table," a U.S. official said on the condition of anonymity. Upon his arrival Friday at the White House, Kim Yong Chol, who is under U.S. sanctions for links to cyberattacks against American companies, delivered a letter from Kim Jong Un. While Trump did not reveal the contents, he described the gesture as "very nice." Question: Why is there a sense that Trump and Kim Jong Un have a clear idea of the deal they ultimately want to strike? Options: - not enough information - There is a sense among observers that they have a clear sense because of the urgency of the deal they want to strike. - Trump has a clear sense of his deal only but Jong does not. - There is not a sense that they have a clear idea of the deal because they want to negotiate. === The correct answer is
**Answer**
There is a sense among observers that they have a clear sense because of the urgency of the deal they want to strike.