Emily Nagoski is a badass Ph.D. who teaches human sexuality. She wrote a book Come As You Are. Here's a secret: the entire sexology community was eager to get their mitts on her book, it was very exciting. I can't recall the last time there was that much hullabaloo about one book. In this important book, Dr Nagoski explains the interplay between sexual desire and stress a concept that gives us a unique insight into what is going on in women's sex lives. THE ACCELERATOR AND THE BRAKES This concept is a big deal. Think of the accelerator and the brake of a car. Each pedal acts independently from one another; you can press on the accelerator and you can stomp on the brakes. You can even press both at the same time. We don't often press them at the same time in fact, I was specifically told NOT to do that in driver's ed but anyhow, pretend you do. If you press both pedals all the way to the floor of the car, do you stop or go? That's right, you STOP! Ok, now get this, your brake pedal is all the stress you have and your accelerator is your sexual desire. In the same way that the brake and accelerator of a car are two separate pedals yet also inextricably linked, so are your stress and your arousal. They are not the same things, yet have everything to do with one another. If your stress level is high, the majority of women have brakes that turn on, meaning, no matter how much sexy stuff is going on around her, she does not want sex at all. It is like she is pressing down the brakes and the accelerator at the same time. This isn't the case for all women; some women have extremely sensitive brakes or extremely sensitive accelerators. And as Nagoski has found, while this correlation between stress and sexual desire is more common for women, men experience it too (just not quite as often). According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: How do people generally feel about Emily Nagoski's book Come as You are? Options: A. people aren't generally interested in the book B. people are indifferent to the book C. not enough information D. people are eager to get their mitts on the book
D

(Question)
There is no hiding from the impact agenda. The impact weighting of the Research Excellence Framework has been increased for 2021, and more recently the UK Government announced a new funding stream for knowledge exchange. But achieving impact isn't easy, especially for researchers early in their careers. If you ever have a spare week, or ten, it's worth reading through some of the 6,637 REF impact case studies on the HEFCE website. There are some brilliant and fascinating examples of how researchers have achieved impact, but what strikes me most is how different impact looks across different subjects. At the risk of being flippant, among many of the medical or technological examples there is a familiar pattern and a clear route to impact: make breakthrough; license drug/technology; save lives/millions. For social and political science (not to mention economics, languages, education, philosophy, etc.) the route to impact is much more fragmented. Among the 97 sociology case studies, for example, impact comes from numerous briefings of government officials and parliamentarians, before the academics join "networks" and "committees" discussing their research and wider issues. Their research is covered by national media, they meet even more people practitioners or third sector campaigning organisations to pass on their knowledge. And, after all that, and often a good deal more, sometimes there is a policy or practice change that can be pointed to as a direct impact, sometimes not. Central to much of the impact is "access". Prominent and experienced academics are more likely to get on the committees, know the right journalists and government officials, and have links into third sector organisations, etc. I worked with Professor Sir John Curtice, of election night fame, for a number of years. He didn't need much support. I advised and facilitated, but after 30 years in the game he knew Whitehall (and Holyrood) inside and out and they knew him. But many researchers, especially at the start of their careers, don't... According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: How long does it probably take the author to read an REF impact case study? Options: A. probably about a few weeks B. probably about an hour C. probably a few hours D. not enough information
(Answer)
B

Question: When I was writing the manuscript for Florentine, I enlisted the help of an army of recipe testers about 80 people from all over the world to test every recipe thoroughly. Only one came back to me consistently with problems. From Minnesota to Melbourne, three testers wrote to me that their very first attempt at making Tuscan gnudi (ricotta and spinach balls that, rather than be encased in pasta like for ravioli, are simply dusted in flour) resulted in a pot of simmering water with "dissolved" gnudi. It reminded me of Pellegrino Artusi's potato gnocchi recipe in his famous cookbook from 1891, where he interrupts the recipe instructions to mention a signora who, upon attempting to stir the gnocchi cooking in the pot, finds they have disappeared O dove'erano andati? "Where did they go?" In the case of the gnocchi, there was too little flour used, according to Artusi. But in the case of the gnudi, I already had a hunch. I grilled all three testers on a number of various factors was the water just simmering, not on a rolling boil (which can destroy delicate gnudi), did they drain the spinach very well, and equally the ricotta (one said she even drained it overnight)? Did they use "proper" ricotta? Aha. "Proper" ricotta. The kind that was only made a day or so earlier, the leftovers of the cheese-making process, the real deal. The kind that you can see in a deli counter, standing on its own, that gets cut into a big wedge and weighed when you order it. Not the kind you buy at the supermarket, in a tub, that so often is grainy, more like the consistency of yogurt, has no structure, and is full of unnecessary gums or additives. All my recipe testers had used the second kind to be fair, some were new to the idea of buying ricotta and in their neighbourhood only had access to this. In that case, it would have probably been better to make your own, or choose another recipe. According to the above context, choose the correct option to answer the following question. Question: When is the proper ricotta made? Options: A. not enough information B. aged at least a month ago and with proper gums and additives C. a day or so earlier D. aged at least a month ago without gums or additives
Answer:
C