Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: Michael Morzeny put his hands into the pockets of his overcoat and hugged the fabric tighter around his body. The winter wind hurried down Columbus Avenue and the hem of his coat flapped around his knees letting little pockets of cold waft up to invade the warmth his body had spent so much time preparing and storing around his torso. With a bitter squeeze of his hands, his knuckles now getting cold, Morzeny bowed his square shoulders to the wind and continued walking. At sixty-seven years old the New York winters bothered Morzeny more than he cared to admit. And, although no doctor would admit it to him, he was positive that the first faint hints of arthritis tweaking through his hands were made worse by the cold. At every cross street the setting sun flashed through to the avenue in shades of crisp pink and red. Morzeny didn't want to be working right now. But these outings were the price he paid for having a hybrid job, owning buildings and brokering as many of his own leases as possible. When he had first come to the city he had been told that he needed a job, not for income, his providers took care of that, but for his own sanity. Something to keep him going. He had asked for something in real estate and had never bothered to wonder what other paths he might have taken. He had always been able to focus to the point of blindness. It helped him in every aspect of his work. He arrived at the brownstone building housing the apartment he was to show tonight. His building was tucked into a short row of buildings that squatted over the street, their steps reaching towards the curb like stunted growths. More to prove to himself that he could do it than anything else, Morzeny took the front steps two at a time. Question: Why did the New York winters bother Morzeny? Options: - not enough information - He is from the south - He is 67 years old - He doesn't have a good coat
He is 67 years old

Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: My love affair with technology began at an early age. On my seventh birthday, my parents bought me a second-hand ZX Spectrum and, in a foretaste of my life to come, I immediately set about learning how to use it to get attention. It's a sign of how rapidly technology develops that my crappy Spectrum, with its 48k of memory, already had 12k more storage power than the computer that had guided the Apollo 11 moon landing eighteen years earlier* With power like that, there seemed to be no limit to what I could do. While my other computer-owning peers would sit for hours while their tape drives squawked away loading 'Manic Miner' or 'Bubble Buster' I was more fascinated by learning to write my own programs. The first of these consisted of just two lines of code* that made the word 'shit' appear again and again on my screen, to the huge amusement of my friends and the irritation of my parents, who obviously had more educational motives for bringing a computer into the house. From that day on, the possibilities offered by technology to both subvert the norm and get attention had me hooked. Years later, at secondary school, I convinced my English teacher, Mr Coen, to teach me desktop publishing, ostensibly to work on the official school magazine, but in reality to produce an alternative underground version - complete with less than flattering articles about teachers and fellow pupils and distributed via the publicly accessible shared hard drive that was supposed to be used for collaborative coursework. That particular stunt got me banned from the school computer room for half a term. And then, in 1997, I discovered the Internet. Throughout history, every fame-hungry media dickhead has found his preferred medium for pursuing fame and wealth (in that order). For Tony Parsons - and Hitler, for that matter - it was books. William Randolph Hearst chose newspapers. Don Imus and Howard Stern preferred radio. For Nick Griffin it's inflammatory leaflets. For Tracy Emin it's art. Or at least an approximation of it. With the... Question: What did his parents buy him on his seventh birthday? Options: - ZX Spectrum. - A radio - not enough information - A book
ZX Spectrum.

(Question)
Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: Cooking food is something we have done since the first caveman threw a mammoth steak on the fire. While it is true that cooking does cause chemical changes in food and a loss of some nutrients, it is a clear case of being alert and not alarmed. Every time we cook food, there is some degree of nutrient loss. Exposing food to heat, oxygen or light alters the nutrients found in food. It is not all bad news though because cooking food also has its advantages. Cooking food can increase its digestibility, meaning you will get more nutrients out of it. And even though there may be less of some nutrients from cooking, it is swings and roundabouts as the availability of certain phytonutrients increases. And of course, let's not forget that heating food kills some of the nasty microbes that can cause food poisoning. The principle behind a raw food diet is that cooking food destroys the natural enzymes and nutrients that would otherwise give us optimal health and control body weight. A raw food diet is almost entirely plant-based and includes fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, grains, vegetable oils and juices in their natural uncooked state. Now on the pro side for a raw food diet, it means if you are currently eating a lot of processed food, then switching to raw food will be a clear nutritional win. So that gets a big tick. Unquestionably, there are many benefits to eating plenty of fruits and vegetables. These foods are high in nutrients and fibre and low in kilojoules. But is raw superior to cooked? A review of 28 research studies found eaters of both cooked and raw vegetables had a lower risk of cancer compared to people who did not eat many vegetables in the first place. Where the science gets murky is the claim that raw food is better because cooking destroys the enzymes found in plants. It is 100 percent correct that cooking will do this. But so too does digestion. Few enzymes survive their trip through the hydrochloric acid spa bath in the stomach. And those plant enzymes are essential only to the plants. The... Question: Why should a raw food diet be eaten? Options: - because it aids digestion - because it provides many kilojoules - because it lowers cancer risks - not enough information
(Answer)
because it lowers cancer risks