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: Why did people die prematurely? Options: A. because of other complications B. not enough information C. because they were consuming too many carbohydrates D. because they were consuming too much fat
C

(Question)
Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: What do apples, pears and oranges all have in common? If you answered that they are all fruits you are absolutely correct. If you answered that they are all good for your health you are spot on again. Fruits used to be a staple in many diets, however in amongst all of the low carb and anti sugar chaos, many people are now avoiding them. In a rush to rid the diet of 'toxic sugar', fruit has fallen on the wayside. However, many studies have shown that fruit is not linked to any adverse health effects, quite the opposite in fact. Most recently researchers in Sweden discovered that eating a diet high in fruits could reduce the risk of an often lethal form of aortic aneurysm. The study collected data from over 80,000 people over a 13 year period and found that people eating at least two whole fruits per day, reduced the risk of developing an abdominal aortic aneurysm by almost a third. The main fruits that were eaten were apples, pears, bananas, oranges and other citrus fruits. The fruits' high antioxidant levels may offer protection by reducing oxidative stress and inflammation. Eating whole fruits can also reduced the risk of developing diabetes. Earlier this year a study published in the British Medical Journal revealed that certain whole fruits in particular blueberries, grapes, apples and pears could lower the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. The study found that over an 18-year period, 6.5% of the 187,382 participants developed diabetes, but those consuming at least two serves of fruit per week reduced their risk by up to 23%. In the same study those who consumed two or more serves of fruit juice per day increased their risk of developing diabetes by as much as 21%. As Tim wrote in a previous blog post, this is reason why you should be eating your fruit, not drinking it Question: What is probably true about the author? Options: A. not enough information B. They are interested in health and nutrition C. They are a professional blogger D. They are a doctor
(Answer)
B

Ques: Read the following context and choose the correct option to answer the question. Context: SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement is not expected to derail diplomatic momentum to reach a deal to end North Korea's nuclear weapons program, but it could complicate the negotiation process, analysts say. Trump on Tuesday announced that the United States is ending its participation in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for Tehran limiting its nuclear program, and would re-impose U.S. economic sanctions on Iran. The agreement was negotiated by the administration of Trump's predecessor, President Barack Obama, and involved five other world powers; Great Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia. Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton said the U.S. decision to re-impose sanctions on Iran will set a higher standard for North Korea nuclear talks by sending, "a very clear signal that the United States will not accept inadequate deals." The U.S. policy reversal on Iran should not seriously impede diplomatic progress underway with North Korea, said Victor Cha, a noted Korea scholar with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "In terms of how the North Koreans would take it, I don't think they'd take it one way or the other. I don't think they'd see it as negative or positive because they think they're different from anybody else anyway. They think they're a very special case," Cha said at a CSIS conference this week. While the Iran deal limited that country's efforts to develop a nuclear bomb, North Korea already possesses 20 to 60 nuclear warheads, according assessments by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, and between 40 to 100 nuclear development facilities, according a report from the RAND Corporation security research organization. But apprehension over whether future U.S. presidents would uphold a nuclear deal reached by Trump could reinforce the North Korean demand for early concessions. John Delury, a North... Question: What is probably true about Iran's possession of nuclear weapons? Options: A. it is dangerous to the world B. they are indifferent to the world C. they are keeping the world safe to the highest degree D. not enough information
Ans:
A