That fall came and I went back to Michigan and the school year went by and summer came and I never really thought about it. I'm not even sure if I was officially asked, I just wound up heading back to New Jersey when school was out. I think my parents thought it was a good enough deal. They were already having some problems and without Nonna there anymore to take care of me I think my cousin's house on the coast seemed like as good a spot as any to stick me for the summer. It certainly wasn't because of any great love between me and my cousin. We weren't really very good friends at that point. I think she saw me as sort of foisted off on her and getting in the way of her summers. Which was a fair enough judgment. But she could have been nicer. It's pretty amazing that she wound up as my Maid of Honor. Time does strange things. Your lovable jack-ass of a father would mention something about magic in here. You know if you took a group of fifty strangers, had them chat with your father for half an hour then with me for half an hour, then told them that one of us was an English Professor and one of us was head of distribution in the northeast for a large soft drink manufacturing concern, I'm pretty sure all fifty would peg your father as the English Professor and me as the head of distribution. He's honestly so good at what he does that I can almost allow him to claim it's magic except that it'd be nice if he took credit for some of the things he's done with his life. Of course he has this idea that he deserves credit for all sorts of things that he had no control over. Like our first kiss. What is true about the narrator? Pick the correct answer from the following options: A. She is old B. She is married C. She is an orphan D. not enough information
D

In September, a new and widely advertised school opened its doors in the capital city - the Part-time Evening Elementary School. You could read in its beautifully printed brochure that the school was designed to help all those "children of wealthy parents, who are too busy to learn during the day due to the time spent on the difficult task of maintaining our country's high ranking in the very competitive field of computer games." In other words: when a parent wanted to have some peace and quiet, he or she would leave the kid at home in front of the computer with a bag of chips. When the kid had enough, which normally happened in the evening, he would go to school for about two hours. The creator of PEES and its first principal was Krzycho Jedynak, a former junior high PE teacher in Potylica, a computer games fan and the winner of, as we could read in the beautifully printer brochure, "a local Amiga gaming championship". Understanding exactly the needs of his future students, he planned to open classes of the following profiles: platform PSP (one group), platform PC (three groups), platform GB (one) and platform Mac (cancelled due to a lack of interest). The school received an astonishing number of applications (four for each spot), which meant that many kids spent their days playing computer games and that many parents wanted time for themselves. To be accepted, young candidates had to demonstrate their social and psychological maturity and computer instincts, evaluated according to a patented method developed by Mr. Jedynak. The parents, on the other hand, had to pass an exam in using a joystick and provide a proof of income of at least 7000 zloty per month for a young family member. During the registration process was so competitive, it ended in violence. A disappointed father of a child who didn't get in, shouted that only VIP brats had been accepted, for which he got hit in the face by editor Furtok, in private - a father of a kid who got in to group B2/platform PC. Who is Krzycho Jedynak? Pick the correct answer from the following options: A. Taught the Mac platform at PEES. B. Evaluated students by conducting IQ tests for prospective applicants. C. Evaluated psychological fitness of parents. D. not enough information
D

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... Who was eating? Pick the correct answer from the following options: A. the authort B. the participants in the study C. not enough information D. the researchers
B

I was about 14 and lived near a large tract of undeveloped land where people would go and park to fool around. There was a dirt road through the tract, but further down, it crossed two huge concrete pipes. The dirt was washed out between them, and the deep gulch made it impossible to cross in a car. Sometimes, eight or ten of us would go looking for parked cars. If we found one or more, we would go move this incredibly heavy stump onto the road and lay a telephone pole across it. It took all of us and it was incredibly heavy. It was impossible to drive around it because of the ditches and there was no way two or three people could move it. We'd go back to the car and set off a big string of fire crackers or shake the cat and slap on it and run like crazy. We'd watch from the woods as they drove like heck and come to a screeching stop at our roadblock. The guy would get out and try to lift the pole. Never happen. Then the car would drive the other way. That wouldn't happen because of the pipes. We'd go home leaving them in there. This was before cell phones, and it was miles to a pay phone. We'd go back the next day and find the stump and pole moved. We thought it was real funny until one night we set it up and beat on the trunk of a car. A couple was inside, getting it on. We hadn't noticed a guy sitting on the hood with a bottle of booze and a pistol. As we ran, he was shooting and we could hear bullets going through the underbrush. No one was hit, thank goodness. That was the end of that stunt. Who shot the gun? Pick the correct answer from the following options: A. the man who was doing a prank B. The man who the pranksters knocked on his trunk C. not enough information D. the man who was riding a bike
B