Read the following context and answer the question. Context: So this thing happened today. I am living in a society where there are almost 90 houses and almost all of them are occupied. We have one sweeper hired for whole society to collect waste and sweep out dust from our society roads. BTW her name is Hira masi (my brother calls her diamond masi :p). And she is extremely poor and she lives in those slums where almost nothing is available. She earns 50/100 per house each month. (Source) As she is extremely poor, all the society people help her a lot. From giving 2 times food to giving clothes and giving bonuses on special occasion as much as Rs. 1000, they almost help her in each and every aspect. And this is by far the most incredible thing our society has which is humanity. But the twist comes here. On the other side, she is extremely cunning. She rarely cleans the road, takes rarely wastes from homes, gives excuses that she is sick and does not come for work, etc. She does not do her work properly. She also request money from us saying that her family members are ill as much as Rs 10000, even if they are not. So this thing was discussed in our meeting and there some decided to continue her as she was very poor and some decided to leave her. But my mom today told me a great thing- If a person is doing her work seriously, then we will surely help him in every way, even if it is a matter of money, but the person who is not sincere and not doing work properly, then sometimes we have to step back from humanity and be strict. If the person is honest and he is REALLY in need of help, we should definitely help them. But the person who just fakes that he is in need, we should be strict/ignore them, else they will not do any work, and just simply rely on us. Sometimes, being strict and giving up humanity will make the person grow. Question: Why did Diamond Masi live in the slums Answer:
OPTIONS:
- she was poor
- not enough information
- she was born there
- her relatives were there
she was poor

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: And once again, high blood pressure is making headlines in the news: the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) have just released new guidelines about hypertension. Since this development is likely to cause confusion and concern for many, I'm writing this post to help you understand the debate and what this might mean for you and your family. By the way, if you've read any of my other blood pressure articles on this site, let me reassure you: I am not changing my clinical practice or what I recommend to others, based on the new AHA/ACC guidelines. The core principles of better blood pressure management for older adults remain the same: * Take care in how you and your doctors measure blood pressure (more on that here), * Start by aiming to get blood pressure less than 150/90 mm Hg, as recommended by these expert guidelines issued in 2017 and in 2014, * And then learn more about what are the likely benefits versus risks of aiming for more intensive BP control. Perhaps the most important thing to understand is this: treatment of high blood pressure in older adults offers "diminishing returns" as we treat BP to get lower and lower. Scientific evidence indicates that the greatest health benefit, when it comes to reducing the risk of strokes and heart attacks, is in getting systolic blood pressure from high (i.e. 160-180) down to moderate (140-150). From there, the famous SPRINT study, published in 2015, did show a further reduction in cardiovascular risk, when participants were treated to a lower systolic BP, such as a target of 120. However, this was in a carefully selected group of participants, it required taking three blood pressure medications on average, and the reduction in risk was small. As I note in my article explaining SPRINT Senior, in participants aged 75 or older, pushing to that lower goal was associated with an estimated 1-in-27 chance of avoiding a cardiovascular event. (The benefit was even smaller in adults aged 50-75.) Question: What is the author's profession? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Doctor.
- Journalist.
- Pharmacist.

Answer: Doctor.

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: The filming was kind of a long process, but maybe it didn't need to be? Or maybe it did? The first night of filming at the Thornbury Bowls Club was for a test shoot with mine and Rosie's camera, to work out which one we wanted to use for her film. The second night of filming involved us getting establishing shots of the location. The third night of filming involved us mainly shooting Rosie's script. And the fourth night of shooting involved us mainly shooting Bell's script and getting any other shots we needed to get. Perhaps we didn't need an entire night of filming just to get establishing shots and filler shots, but it certainly made it a lot easier having multiple shots to choose from. For the two nights of shooting we certainly didn't get that much coverage, which meant in the edit we were somewhat stuck using certain shots because we didn't have other options. This was mainly because of time limitations with actors and batteries on cameras dying and such. I'm so neurotic I would have happily spent two nights shooting establishing shots and filler shots and two nights on each shoot, but not everyone wants to rearrange the rest of their life to fit around such projects. I get a tad obsessive if I'm allowed, which can often benefit me, although I do become a giant pain in everyone else's ass. The main thing I learnt from the filming process was that you can plan out exactly what you want to do, and how your going to do it, but once you get into the location with the actors this plan often changes however, you are still much better of having the plan than none at all! As the neurotic freak I am, I had all the shots I wanted to use storyboarded. I had originally planned to shoot all the establishing shots, stick them in a timeline and then also shoot the other shots (with fill in actors) and add them to the timeline to see how it looked. Of course no one else was interested in spending an entire night shooting the film but with them as stands in just so I could complete my psychotic endeavour of... Question: How long did the filming last? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- 8 days
- 12 days
- Four days
Four days