(Q).
The Getty Villa is a museum unlike any in the world. It offers an experience of ancient Greek and Roman art in a setting that replicates that in which it would originally have been displayed, a Roman villa of the first century AD. On April 18, after three years of work, the galleries of the Villa reopen with an entirely new arrangement of the collection, one that situates art in its cultural and historical context. Since 2006, when the Getty Villa opened as a museum dedicated to the cultures of the ancient Mediterranean, the collection has been presented along thematic lines, with galleries dedicated to subjects such as ancient theater, athletes and competition, and gods and goddesses. This approach was useful in illuminating social life in the ancient classical world, but it prioritized objects’ subject matter over their stature as works of art and removed them from their broader artistic and cultural context. Reenvisioning how the antiquities were displayed at the Villa was one of my top priorities when I joined the J. Paul Getty Museum as director in 2012. As a specialist in ancient art, my priority is to help visitors to see these great treasures as beautiful and fascinating works of art, and sparking their curiosity to understand them in the context of their place in human culture. Starting April 18 our Villa galleries offer a new journey through ancient Greek, Roman, and Etruscan art. The visitor’s path begins on the first-floor rooms devoted to Neolithic and Bronze Age (Cycladic, Minoan, and Mycenaean) Greek art. The journey continues through the Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic periods, when the Greeks developed the first fully naturalistic vision of the human figure. And it culminates in the dramatic skylit halls of ancient Roman sculpture. In all there are 33 spaces on two floors, with 3,000 more square feet of gallery space than before. The visitor’s path winds through the galleries, gardens, and fountains, offering views onto the spectacular landscape and Pacific Ocean. What was the amount of time it took for the gallery to be made? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - 2012, one year - Three years of work - not enough information - April 18, one day
(A).
Three years of work


(Q).
SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — Some people in Seoul on Tuesday said they are happy just to see U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un talking to each other rather than trading threats of war. “I am very happy because it is an epoch breakthrough after 70 years of division,” said Lee Jun-keun, a salesman working for a retail business. Last year the two leaders traded insults, with Trump calling Kim “rocket man,” and the North Korean leader calling the U.S. president a “dotard,” and they both threatened military action as tension rose over the North’s accelerated weapons testing to develop an operational nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile capability. But after North Korea successfully test-fired missiles it claimed could carry nuclear warheads capable of reaching the United States, Pyongyang pivoted to diplomacy by suspending further provocations and indicating a willingness to engage in denuclearization talks. Trump surprised allies and adversaries alike by immediately agreeing to meet with Kim, long before the specifics of a nuclear deal could be negotiated. Tuesday’s first meeting between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean leader produced a broad declaration to rid the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons and develop a peace treaty to end the long standing hostiles between the U.S. and North Korea. Trump called the agreement “very comprehensive,” but it will be left to negotiators to later resolve differences between Washington’s call for complete and verifiable nuclear dismantlement before any sanctions relief is provided, and Pyongyang’s demand that concessions be linked to incremental progress. Some in South Korea remain skeptical that the broad commitment reached at the U.S.-North Korean summit in Singapore will lead to North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons program. “North Korea did not keep its promise in the past, even after signing the agreement. This is what I am disappointed and doubtful about,” said Shim Jae-yeon, a housewife who lives in Seoul. Others... When were the missiles test-fired by North Korea last year completed? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - not enough information - Sometime last year - over three years before it was test fired - over two years ago
(A).
not enough information


(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... When was the study called PURE started? Pick the correct answer from the following options: - not enough information - 7 years ago - 2 years ago - 4 years ago
(A).

7 years ago