Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: When I had trouble bending over to tie my shoes and I wasn't pregnant. When I hit about 35 I started having trouble with weight. The strange thing was to me, it wasn't that I was eating more then I used to, as a matter of fact I started eating less. When that didn't help I barely ate at all. Still I couldn't lose weight. What I didn't know was we start to lose muscle mass every decade beginning in our thirties, and I was a ripe 35. Muscles use up more calories than fat, so less muscle means a slower metabolism and the need for fewer calories, and the pounds stack on easier. My second problem was my narcolepsy. When you wake up after a nights sleep there is a release of adrenaline which prompts body and mind into action and helps burn off calories. Narcolepsy causes me to sleep on and off during the day, and as explained by my doctor (so if I have this wrong about adrenaline it is my doctors fault lol) I am not getting that adrenaline release because my bodies clock doesn't know if I am asleep or awake. He suggested in the morning to start exercising about 20 minutes to get that adrenaline rush, in the afternoon exercise about twenty minutes more for the same reason Dieting and exercising brought those pounds back down. I will say it is much harder in the winter for me then in the summer. Summer time I am naturally active. I ride bikes with my husband, swim, garden, mow about an acre of lawn. In the winter I can't ride, swim, garden, or mow, and I hate exercise I don't enjoy. Anyway the long answer to the defining moment but there it is just the same. Question: How long did it take to lose the unwanted weight? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- 2 months.
- Several Months.
- 1 year.

A: Several Months.

input: OPTIONS:
- When they are fasting
- When they are traveling
- not enough information
- When they are eating a high protein meal Now, answer this question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Few athletes would disagree that more muscle is an advantage in their sport. And protein is the perfect source of amino acid building blocks needed for new muscle growth and repair. Taken together, strength training and sufficient protein will stimulate new muscle protein synthesis. Note that the keyword here is sufficient, because this is where protein supplement marketers like to extend to "the more the better". So how much protein do sportspeople need? Consensus position statements such as those produced by the American College of Sports Medicine give the range of 1.2 grams to 1.7 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight. But the top end of that range is for elite endurance athletes, power sportspeople and those in the early stages of a strength training phase. The "recreational athlete", which describes the majority of active sportspeople, should aim for the bottom end of the range. So how do those protein requirement numbers stack up against a regular diet? Protein intake and body weights collected in the 2011-2012 Australian Health Survey, as an example, show the average Australian male already eats 1.2 grams and the average female 1.1 grams of protein per kilogram body weight. And this is for mostly sedentary people who are not following any special "high protein" training diet. Sportspeople do have higher energy needs. But by simply eating a greater volume of food with a focus on higher protein content, it's very feasible for an athlete to get their protein requirements from food alone. This has been backed up by research; numerous dietary surveys show the normal diet of strength-based athletes provides around two grams of protein per kilogram body weight per day. And that's before using any protein powders. But protein supplements can't be dismissed altogether. There are circumstances where supplementation is an appropriate and convenient option for athletes, such as when travelling, or during an intense training schedule. Question: When should sportspeople consider taking protein supplements? Answer:
A:
output: When they are traveling

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Juliette Murray was, like me, a kid at school who got 5 "A"s, which in the West of Scotland put a certain degree of pressure on one's shoulders to study either medicine or law. I studied European Law, and became a teacher - that's what a European Law degree does to you. She studied medicine and is today a practicing doctor, but the education bug is firmly rooted in what she chose to do next. Murray noticed that, particularly in her local area, fewer students were applying to study medicine than the population number would suggest should. Not only that, nationally the number of medical students dropping out after beginning their course of study is increasing. She wondered if we might we persuade a more representative cross section of the community to become doctors. She set about improving the opportunities for local youngsters, aged 14/5, at the time of their work experience choices. Existing work experience for those who want to gain an insight into the world of medical doctors is a sanitised course in an educational skills centre, where bored teenagers endlessly take each other's blood pressure. They have more chance of a realistic insight by breaking their arm and turning up to Accident and Emergency. As any dad-to-be donning surgical greens knows, getting into an operating theatre is where a passion for surgery will be born or, in my case, definitely put to one side as a career option. So, the question became: how might we offer a more realistic experience of what being a doctor, surgeon or other medical profession feels like? Starting with her local hospital, Wishaw General in NHS Lanarkshire, she set about overcoming what she describes as a "culture of obstacles". Two years later, though, and students are indeed undertaking real life surgery work experience, experiencing a live operation theatre and seeing the pressure of the job first hand. Question: Why did Juliette start the program Answer:

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Students in her area were not applying to study law
- Students in her area were not applying to study medicine
- Students in her area were not applying to study theatre

Answer: Students in her area were not applying to study medicine

Problem:OPTIONS:
- still in big business
- not enough information
- still in strategy formation
- still in Amsterdam

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: I picked up this Sporf in Amsterdam Schipol airport. A spork I'd seen before, but the addition of a simple serration on the side of the fork end makes this a genuine "three-in-one" implement for eating one's full three-course takeaway meal on the plane. The sporf is no innovation; back in 1940 the "sporf" was born. It took me until 2015 to notice this one thanks to its rather pleasant design. The sporf is a little like most strategy documents that I come across. It is one implement designed to serve a multitude of goals, but with one fatal flaw: you can only ever use one part of the sporf / strategy at any one time. With the sporf, things would get messy trying to use the spoon and knife and the same time. The knife and fork work quite well in sequence but physics prevents me using both at the same time as I can with the older technologies of knife and fork. In strategy formation, we can develop a multitude of potential purposes within one document, killer vision statement or mission. But it's important to recognise that the teams around us will only ever be able to do one thing really well at any one time. This is a lesson oft ignored by schools, in particular, as they attempt to ask educators to create an ever-more creative curriculum without having first tackled attitudes towards summative assessments throughout the year. It is also a challenge in some of the world's most successful, but now stagnating, big businesses: they've spent decades or centuries building a reputation across a large array of devices, technologies, components or clothing, but the real strategy is working out which of the current array needs killed off to enable teams in their quest to develop something totally new, properly innovative. Question: After the end of the story, the author is probably: Answer:
****
A:
still in strategy formation