Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: Miguel Diaz-Canel has been named Cuba's next president, marking the first time in 60 years the communist-run country has had a president outside the Castro family. The 57-year-old Diaz-Canel, the only candidate for the job, won a five-year term, according to state media. The move was not expected to usher in drastic change. Upon being sworn in Thursday, Diaz-Canel promised to continue the Castros' socialist revolution. "The mandate given by the people to this house is to give continuity to the Cuban revolution in a crucial historic moment," Diaz-Canel said. Diaz-Canel, a former first vice president, appears to be socially liberal and is considered an acceptable successor to the retiring elderly leaders who fought in the revolution. He succeeds 86-year-old Raul Castro, who is resigning after 10 years in office. Raul Castro's late brother, Fidel, served as prime minister and president after the armed Cuban Revolution in 1959 until he became ill in 2006. While the leadership transition is elevating younger leaders, Raul Castro and other older revolutionaries are expected to retain their power, due to their hold on the Communist Party. Castro will remain party leader. "Raul Castro, as first secretary of the Communist Party, will lead the decisions about the future of the country,'' Diaz-Canel said in his speech. "Cuba needs him, providing ideas and proposals for the revolutionary cause, orienting and alerting us about any error or deficiency, teaching us, and always ready to confront imperialism.'' Castro told members of the National Assembly that Diaz-Canel could serve two years as president, and that he will likely eventually take his place as head of the Communist Party. Diaz-Canel will face pressure to bring greater prosperity to the Caribbean country and revitalize its economy, which is weaker than it was in 1985 when it was supported by the former Soviet Union. Since Fidel and Raul Castro led a guerrilla movement that overthrew a dictatorship and took over the country in 1959, the name Castro has been... Question: :After the end of the story, Diaz-Canel is probably: Options: - not enough information - Gives up the option to be in office - Elected into office - Kicked out of office
Elected into office

(Question)
Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: I was 35 weeks pregnant when I had my stroke. For weeks prior to the event I kept experiencing 'visual disturbances.' I felt when I was reading a newspaper or book a sense that my eyes were crossing. I'd feel aware right before it would occur and I would rush to look in a mirror only to discover my eyes were not crossing. I informed my OB who blamed it on the blood vessels in my eyes enlarging due to pregnancy. Ummm ok. You know more than me. Later I was told by a surgeon what I was experiencing was 'textbook' for the passing of blood clots through my occipital area of the brain! The feeling would eventually subside. I awoke one morning feeling 'kind of fuzzy' headed. Like I had slept too hard. I sat with my husband at the kitchen table for our morning coffee and newspaper and for no reason I could imagine I was unable to swallow my coffee and it dribbled out the left side of my mouth. My husband asked me what was going on and I apparently told him, I was 'stroking' out. He got up from the table assuming I was OK and went off to take his morning shower. While in the shower it occurred to him something might not be right. He came back to the table where I was struggling to lift myself from the chair. I put my hands on the table to lift my body and my left hand kept sliding off the edge. He finally got behind me and tried to lift me under my arms and I crumbled to the floor. He then called my OB and told him he thought I'd had a stroke. My OB immediately expressed his doubt but my husband was advised to call an ambulance to get me to the ER. I never really experienced pain from the stroke. Question: The narrator's probably believes that: Options: - The OB should have helped more. - The surgeon was wrong. - Her husband didn't care. - not enough information
(Answer)
The OB should have helped more.

Ques: 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: What is probably true about the PURE study? Options: - not enough information - it probably had a medium amount of funding - it probably was funded heavily - it probably had limited funding
Ans:
it probably was funded heavily