Question: Problem:

Cooking food is something we have done since the first caveman threw a mammoth steak on the fire. While it is true that cooking does cause chemical changes in food and a loss of some nutrients, it is a clear case of being alert and not alarmed. Every time we cook food, there is some degree of nutrient loss. Exposing food to heat, oxygen or light alters the nutrients found in food. It is not all bad news though because cooking food also has its advantages. Cooking food can increase its digestibility, meaning you will get more nutrients out of it. And even though there may be less of some nutrients from cooking, it is swings and roundabouts as the availability of certain phytonutrients increases. And of course, let’s not forget that heating food kills some of the nasty microbes that can cause food poisoning. The principle behind a raw food diet is that cooking food destroys the natural enzymes and nutrients that would otherwise give us optimal health and control body weight. A raw food diet is almost entirely plant-based and includes fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, grains, vegetable oils and juices in their natural uncooked state. Now on the pro side for a raw food diet, it means if you are currently eating a lot of processed food, then switching to raw food will be a clear nutritional win. So that gets a big tick. Unquestionably, there are many benefits to eating plenty of fruits and vegetables. These foods are high in nutrients and fibre and low in kilojoules. But is raw superior to cooked? A review of 28 research studies found eaters of both cooked and raw vegetables had a lower risk of cancer compared to people who did not eat many vegetables in the first place. Where the science gets murky is the claim that raw food is better because cooking destroys the enzymes found in plants. It is 100 percent correct that cooking will do this. But so too does digestion. Few enzymes survive their trip through the hydrochloric acid spa bath in the stomach. And those plant enzymes are essential only to the plants. The... Question: Which is probably the most common microbe killed by cooking? === The answer to the above question is
****
A: not enough information


Problem:

At an early meeting of the British Sociological Association’s “Activism in Sociology Forum” members met to discuss how we might play a more campaigning role in the world outside the academy. Pragmatically, academics tend to work long hours. We are faced with multiple and competing demands: teaching, administration, publishing, marketing, research, grant-bidding, and so on. The REF has ramped up the requirement to demonstrate the efficacy of our research in “the real world” (our impact upon society, economy, and culture rather than upon knowledge per se, or upon the academic discipline). Maybe here – I suggested, as my contribution to the meeting – was a chance for those of us interested in progressing social justice to lever officially sanctioned space, in our busy day-to-day lives, to do more of this sort of work? Maybe we should welcome the REF impact agenda? I learned afterwards that eminent British sociologists, whom I respect enormously, regarded such a viewpoint as “naïve” and “embarrassing”. Indeed, critics interpret REF as just one mode of the heightened, neoliberal, managerial control that is degrading academic life and infesting universities. So, how should we think about the REF impact agenda? Because of its obvious connections with social improvement and reform through policy action, social policy is regarded as one disciplinary area that is well-placed to meet and benefit from the impact agenda. Yet there has been surprisingly little concerted discussion amongst scholars about REF and impact. This is despite the fact that many millions of pounds of public funding accrue to the proposed or claimed impact of research (with monies channelled through research councils to individual projects or via regular, six-yearly centralised assessments of the quality of research in university departments). In addition, there is substantial funding directed toward the “impact industry”; the consultants, think tanks, PR firms, funding schemes, new software programmes, impact managers, specialist impact case study... Question: Who gets the most funding in the impact industry? === The answer to the above question is
****
A: not enough information


Problem:

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday blasted former FBI director James Comey as an "untruthful slime ball," and said it was his "great honor" to fire him. Trump's barrage of insults comes as Comey engages in a publicity campaign for his book, "A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership," which is set to be released next week. The memoir promises a deep look at Comey's fraught relationship with the U.S. president who fired him, and whom Comey has accused of interfering in the independence of the FBI. On Twitter, Trump said Comey should be prosecuted. Trump's comments are in line with an online campaign, organized by his supporters, to discredit Comey. The Republican National Committee on Thursday launched a new website, Lyin'Comey.com, which features quotes from prominent Democrats who have criticized the former FBI director in the past. The GOP plans to fact-check Comey's book and use the website for "rapid response" to highlight any "misstatements" or "contradictions," Fox News reports. Comey's book blasts Trump as unethical and "untethered to truth'' and calls his leadership of the country "ego driven and about personal loyalty.'' The book also contains several personal jabs at Trump, including references to what Comey says are the "bright white half-moons" under Trump's eyes, which he surmises were the result of Trump using tanning goggles. Comey also casts Trump as a Mafia boss-like figure who sought to blur the line between law enforcement and politics, and tried to pressure him regarding his investigation into Russian election interference, according to multiple early reviews of the book. Trump fired Comey in May 2017, setting off a storm of charges from Democrats that the president sought to hinder an investigation into whether his campaign colluded with Russians. The firing led to the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel overseeing the Russia investigation. Mueller's probe has expanded to include whether Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey, an idea the president denies. Trump has... Question: After the story ends, Comey probably: === The answer to the above question is
****
A:
Answer: Does not return to working for the FBI ever