Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: The U.S. has long had the unenviable distinction of holding the world's largest prison population, in part because of tough-on-crime policies enacted in the 1990s. But sentencing reforms passed in recent years appear to have made a dent, leading to declines in the population over the past eight years. A criminal justice reform organization reported Friday that in 2017, the U.S. prison population dropped below 1.5 million for the first time in more than a decade. The decline, according to the Washington-based Vera Institute for Justice, was driven by a sharp decrease in the number of inmates in federal prisons and decreases in several states with large prison populations. Total U.S. prison population dropped to 1,486,000 last year, a decline of nearly 16,000. The number of federal prisoners fell to 183,000, and the number of inmates in state prisons declined to 1.3 million, according to the report. (The overall figure does not include the more than 600,000 defendants held in local, state and federal jails.) The decline extended an eight-year downward trend in U.S. prison population that has been driven by federal and state sentencing reforms enacted over the past decade. But the Vera institute cautioned that it was unclear whether the trend would continue. "Whether criminal justice reform can continue to fuel this sustained decline in the prison population remains to be seen," said Jacob Kang-Brown, senior research associate at Vera. "We must continue to do the hard work, as advocates and agents of change, to ensure that all our communities feel the relief of decarceration." The report came as President Donald Trump called on Congress to pass legislation to help former inmates reintegrate into society and avoid going back to prison, as many do. "We want former inmates to find a path to success so they can support their families and support their communities," Trump said at a White House summit on prison reform attended by two state governors and Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, who is spearheading... Question: The senior research associate probably feels: Options: - that prison numbers will stagnate. - that prison numbers will increase. - not enough information - Skeptical about the prison decline trend continuing.
Skeptical about the prison decline trend continuing.

Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: To live a happy, healthy, balanced life, you must learn to focus your energy on well-being. Self-care on all levels should be an integral part of your lifestyle. There is an abundance of information available about the benefits of eating well and exercising regularly to sustain a healthy mind and body. In fact, I write about both regularly. But today I want to move in a little different direction. In addition to those two very basic and critical activities, there are a number of other things you can to improve your mental health and overall well-being. By incorporating them into your daily life, you will be better able to manage most challenges including struggles with self-doubt, anxiety, and mild depression. Practices that Focus Your Energy on Well-being Accept Your Feelings Stuffing or ignoring your emotions is more damaging than it is helpful. Everyone has emotions. They are a natural part of being human. Bottling them up may seem like a good solution in the moment, but when you do it all the time, you are potentially creating a time bomb that will eventually explode. Unfortunately, you are hurting yourself as you hold them in and you run the risk of hurting those you love when the eruption finally occurs. Rather than acknowledging what you are feeling and allowing yourself to experience emotions, you may medicate, rationalize, blame, bury, deny, smother, drink, or stuff them (pretend they don't exist). Emotions have become the enemy and many people will do anything to avoid them especially the big three: fear, anger and sadness. It takes a lot of mental, physical and emotional energy to avoiding your feelings and creates high levels of stress and anxiety. Don't stuff your emotions! Let yourself laugh, cry, scream, yell, or pound something (preferably a pillow, grass, sand not the wall or someone else). Do whatever you need to do, probably in private is the best choice. But, if emotions erupt in public, excuse yourself and let it rip. This is nature's way of releasing stress. Don't beat yourself... Question: What is probably true about the author? Options: - not enough information - the author thinks about feelings a lot - the author doesn't think about feelings - the author is not a feelings type of person, but thinks sometimes about them
the author thinks about feelings a lot

(Question)
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 was eating? Options: - the authort - the participants in the study - not enough information - the researchers
(Answer)
the participants in the study