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because 2016 has been declared the year of post-truth politics, the year in which appeals to emotions (pathos) superseded the significance of factual evidence-based information (logos), affecting people's constructions and interpretations of events.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... After the end of the passage, the writer A. kept this story going B. analyzed more economics people C. kept learning about it. D. not enough information
B

WHITE HOUSE "The United States will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility," President Donald Trump vowed Monday amid growing outrage over his administration forcibly separating children from parents at the U.S. border with Mexico. Trump, speaking in the White House East Room during a National Space Council meeting, warned that "what's happening in Europe we can't allow that to happen to the United States not on my watch." Earlier in the day, on the Twitter social media platform, the president inaccurately linked migration in Germany to a rising crime rate. In actuality, the latest German government statistics show reported crimes at the lowest level in 30 years. Tough border enforcement in the U.S. has led to the family breakups, with nearly 2,000 children being sent to mass detention centers or foster care from mid-April to the end of May, according to government officials. The regular White House briefing was delayed several times Monday amid the furor as officials huddled with Trump in the West Wing. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders finally introduced Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen after 5 p.m., and she defended the administration's "zero-tolerance" policy that is breaking up families at the southwestern U.S. border. Nielsen forcefully pushed back at the negative media coverage, asserting that what U.S. authorities are doing is properly enforcing the law. "What has changed is that we no longer exempt entire classes of people who break the law," she said. Asked about critics accusing the administration of using children as "pawns" to demand legislative actions from Congress, the DHS secretary replied, "I say that is a very cowardly response," adding it is clearly within Congress' power "to make the laws and change the laws. They should do so." Trump's Republican party controls both chambers in Congress, and the family border policies were set by his administration. In a tweet displaying photographs of a detention facility, showing children... What led to family breakups in the U.S. in the article? A. divorce B. loss of jobs C. not enough information D. tough border enforcement
D

*Question*
This is a beauty myth that I have been wanting to bust for a while as I am surprised how many people actually believe it. I am quite vain so hate having visible grey hairs. Having naturally dark brown hair means that even a single grey hair is very noticeable. From the age of about 22 or 23 I discovered that I had about five grey hairs floating about. As soon as I could see them I'd pull them out. Then, a few months later when they were rearing their ugly heads again - pluck, out they'd come again! Up until I was about 27 or 28 I only had these 5 grey hairs, well that was all I could find anyway. Then from 28 onwards they have been inviting their friends and relatives to move in and I am slowly losing the plucking battle (side note: this increase in grey hairs at 28 was also the year that I got married...I wonder if their is any correlation between getting married and going grey??). Whenever I was having a conversation with someone about grey hairs and I'd mention that I pull mine out, they'd look at me horrified - 'you can't do that, seven more will grow back in its place' they would all warn me. Even my hairdresser was horrified that I plucked my grey hairs. One day when she was straightening my hair I could see a stray grey sticking up and it was driving me crazy. I asked her to pull it out and she refused saying that I'd end up with more if she pulled it out. I have never believed this old wives tale, mostly because for five years I kept plucking my greys yet they didn't increase in number. Plus it made no sense to me. Why would plucking greys cause more greys to grow when the same is not true for your coloured hair. Imagine if it were true - that would mean that the cure for baldness would be to pluck out your hair as each hair you pluck causes seven more to grow in its place - doesn't really make sense, does it? Or worse, each time you waxed your legs, seven hairs replaced each pulled one - what state would your legs be in now? The narrator believes that A. Grey hair is bad B. He has a bad hairdresser C. not enough information D. Grey hair is good
**Answer**
A