Question: Larisa Grollemond is conducting a comparative study of illuminations in the Mirror of History (Speculum historiale, Miroir historial) as a graduate intern in the Manuscripts Department of the Getty Museum. The massive text, compiled in the 1200s by friar Vincent of Beauvais and translated into French in the 14th century by Jean de Vignay, attempts to compile all of world history from creation to the present into a single source. "If our twenty-first-century way of understanding everything is to put it on the Internet," she says, "the medieval way of understanding was to create big encyclopedic texts that try to encompass all of human history and biblical history in an organized way." Larisa, who recently completed her PhD at the University of Pennsylvania with a focus on 15th-century French manuscript culture, is focusing on the Getty volumes' unique program of illuminations. The French translation of the Miroir historial exists in some 40 known copies, and while the text remains mostly unchanged from copy to copy, the illuminations vary dramatically, both in how scenes are depicted and in which episodes artists choose to depict. Larisa has decided to focus on the evolution of depictions of India and its inhabitants across these various copies, because the Getty copy, which dates to 1475, contains images that are different from earlier illuminated versions. While other copies don't dedicate more than one or two illustrations to India, the Getty copy has several that draw upon the medieval tradition of the "monstrous peoples" as well as knowledge of geography, materials, and customs newly gained through trade. This work ties into broader scholarly efforts to shed light on globalization in the Middle Ages. "Scholars of medieval art have generally thought of Western Europe as the center and non-European places as the periphery. There has now been a revision of that view," says Larisa. "These manuscripts provide an interesting glimpse into how late-medieval Europeans made sense of their world, including... Question: Larisa probably believes that: === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- history is important for understanding the world today
- history is boring
- not enough information
- history is irrelevant
Answer: history is important for understanding the world today

input with options: 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: What did the PURE study monitor? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- protein consumption only
- not enough information
- carbohydrate and fat consumption
- fat consumption only
output: carbohydrate and fat consumption

Q: "If you can answer three questions," the dog said, "you can wear the magic shoes." Tommy looked up and down the deserted street. "Did you ... say something?" "That's right. Didn't you hear me?" It was a gruff voice, with just a trace of an English accent, and it was definitely coming out of the dog. "You're a dog." In fact it was a huge, fat bulldog, with big flaps of skin hanging off the sides of its face. From where it sat, on the front steps of the abandoned motel, it looked Tommy straight in the eye. "That's correct," the dog said. Tommy stared hard at the dusty windows of the motel office. "This is a trick, right? There's a TV camera back there and you want to make me look stupid." "No tricks, Tommy. Just three questions." "C'mon," Tommy said. He deepened his voice. "Sit up." The dog stared at him. "Roll over. Play dead." "Cut the crap, Tommy. Do you want the shoes or not?" "Let me see 'em." The dog shifted its weight to one side, revealing a battered pair of red Converse All-Stars. "Yuck," Tommy said. "Those are gross." "Maybe," the dog said, "but they're magic." "What are the questions?" "Which of the following presidents died in office? Lincoln, McKinley, F.D.R.?" "C'mon. They all did. That's the same dumb question they use when they're trying to sell you a free portrait on the telephone." "Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?" "They both weigh a pound. This is stupid. Next you're going to ask me who's buried in Grant's Tomb." The dog narrowed its eyes. "Have you done this before?" "Ulysses S. Grant," Tommy said. "Lemme see the shoes." They were just his size and felt pretty good, even though they were scuffed up and the metal things were gone out of the side vents. "I don't feel any different," Tommy said. "You need the shoes to look for the treasure," the dog said. "What treasure?" "When you're wearing the shoes, you can open the doors of the motel rooms." Question: Where was the dog located when it started talking === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- inside the motel
- not enough information
- In Grant's Tomb
- outside of the motel

A:
outside of the motel