Write the right answer to the question based on the context passage.

Q: I used to work as a Certified Nurse Assistant at this rehabilitation/skilled nursing facility.
I just started my shift that afternoon, got endorsements from the previous shift, and prepared myself to meet my residents.
One of my residents that day was post-op total knee replacement. I went to her room, introduced myself as her CNA, and asked her if she needed anything before I leave her room. And then, she told me she's having a hard time using the commode the previous nurses gave her when she was admitted to our facilty as it was very small for her given the fact that she also had a recent TKA (total knee arthroplasty). Because of this, I told her I'll do my best to look for a commode that will fit her.
I looked in our two storage areas and fortunately, I found one that was perfect for her! Voila!
I disinfected it really well and returned to her room with her new commode. Her face immediately lighted up when she saw what I was carrying and she started tearing up! Startled by her reaction, I asked her what's wrong and why was she crying. And then she told me she's been asking the previous shifts for two days and no one's bringing the right commode for her. They kept on telling they're going to bring her a new one, but they probably ended up forgetting her request.
She was so ecstatic! I helped her try the commode and it really was perfect for her and she didn't have a hard time using it.
She thanked me so much, and oh, it was mother's day that day! She told me one of the most touching thing, "happy Mother's day to your Mom and thank your Mom for me. She raised you really well."
I had no idea a simple commode can bring so much joy to my resident. Small things really do matter! Question: Who had a post-op total knee replacement?

A: The resident
****
Q: 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 look at is the positive messages the study gave and how when you look at the full research field, it takes you back to some pretty sensible advice. Question: Who was eating?

A: the participants in the study
****
Q: "Congratulations, jackass, you just got us sued."
My editor, Sharon, was standing in front of my desk. She was apparently not happy.
I shrugged, slouching further down in my chair, trying to hide from her gigantic crazy eyes behind my computer. It was a white laptop with a sticker that said "This Machine Kills Yuppies" slapped over the corporate logo on back.
She reached out with one of her freakish man-hands and slammed the screen shut. "Let me try this again. You just got us sued six times over."
Sharon Sinclair was a six-foot-tall beast of a woman with a huge mane of wiry black and gray hair pulled back in a pony tail. I had every confidence that she could tear me in two and use my bloody carcass in some kinky hedonistic lesbian cult ritual or something. So I usually tried to choose my words with the appropriate care around her.
"Jesus-fucking-Christ, I haven't even had my morning coffee yet, and my head's still reeling from the Louisville Slugger that pummeled it last night. So I really don't feel like dealing with whatever annoying hormonal episode you have going on here."
She glared at me silently, watching me squirm a little before asking, "Are you done?"
"Probably."
"Good," she said with a suppressed grin as she took a seat next to me. "Because I just let you publicly accuse the mayor and the valley's most powerful corporations of conspiring to defraud the taxpayers. So what's your plan for keeping my ass off the firing line?"
I tilted back in my chair and met Sharon's gaze. "Look, we knew we'd get a strong reaction. Let them sue. We have e-mails to back us up."
"These legal briefings say your e-mails were forged," she responded, waving a thick stack of papers in my face.
"Of course they're gonna say that. That's why I made sure to get corroboration. Abrasax confirmed that the e-mails between Dylan Maxwell and City Hall are legit. But you know all this, so I don't know why we're wasting time going over it again." Question: Who had freakish man-hands?

A:
Sharon
****
