Problem: OPTIONS:
- they eat a healthy diet already
- not enough information
- they are low in minerals
- they are trying to lose weight
Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Following up from my recent blog post explaining why dietary supplements offer few benefits for most people, new research has found that people who take a mineral supplement actually consume more minerals from their normal diet than non-supplement users. The notion of the ‘worried well’ is certainly alive and kicking. Vitamin and mineral supplements are big business. Reported figures in Australia suggest that 27% of women and 15% of men take some form of supplement with vitamin C, B complex, multivitamins, vitamin E and calcium all being popular choices. Contrary to the rationale for needing supplements in the first place, people who take supplements are more likely to be healthier than people who don’t take supplements. Supplement users also tend to be leaner, smoke less, exercise more, and eat more fruit and vegetables. While it may seem obvious that people who take supplements likely consume more nutrients from their regular diet to start with, this hasn’t been well studied in large population groups. Using data from a nationally representative government health survey, researchers from the United States looked at the mineral intake from food and supplements of over 8000 men and women between 2003 and 2006. The results were clear cut: people taking mineral supplements were consuming more minerals from their normal diet than those who didn’t take supplements. The observation was even stronger in women than in men. The eight most popular mineral supplements taken were calcium, iron, magnesium, zinc, phosphorus, copper, potassium and selenium. Proving that it is possible to have too much of a good thing, supplement users were more likely to be exceeding the recommended upper level of intake for magnesium, zinc, iron and calcium. For someone who believes that they are reasonably healthy and are conscious of what they eat most of the time, taking a mineral supplement ‘just in case’ offers little to no benefit. Question: What is likely to be true about daily supplement users? Answer:
Answer: they eat a healthy diet already
Problem: OPTIONS:
- Once.
- Three times.
- Five times.
- not enough information
Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: My mother's shopping lists were ordered by rules known only to her. As you slid your finger down the columns of groceries and toiletries, you would invariably be stopped by something along the lines of "2dozjumHerbal Essences" or "1pepperoni TC," with the "TC" underlined twice and flanked by gnarled masses of pencil scratch-outs. When we were kids, we dreaded accompanying her to Wal-Mart, or worse, the Cosco at the edge of town, where the echoing rafters and limitless aisles seemed to mock the confusion into which we were inevitably thrown when handed torn-off fragments of the list. Of course, it was easy enough to see in hindsight that "2dozjumHerbal Essences" was merely the bastard child of two drunkenly weaving columns--we had been supposed to get two dozen jumbo eggs and a bottle of my mother's favourite brand of shampoo (ever inventive in creating proprietary abbreviations--"TC" standing for, what else, thin crust pizza--my mother scrupulously wrote out brand names in full). It was a little like ordering chemicals for a laboratory, sans any knowledge of chemistry--or, for that matter, laboratories, although my ignorance of the distinction between baking soda and baking powder cannot be entirely the root of my confusion. Eventually I--and my siblings--learned the difference between tomato paste and tomato sauce, and could readily distinguish one brand of laundry detergent from a similarly-styled knock-off, but my shame-faced trips back to the mothercart never ceased. I would track her down, most often in the produce section--she was usually loath to trust us with the delicate task of selecting the very best fruits and vegetables--and hand her back my portion of the list, asking for an explanation. Usually it amounted to a failure of awareness on my part--get the kind of soap we always get, of course! Question: How many times did the author have to return to her mother for clarification? Answer:
Answer: not enough information
Problem: OPTIONS:
- it was going bankrupt
- to punish workers
- not enough information
- To show commitment to denuclearization prior to the summit with the US
Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: SEOUL — North Korea shut down its Punggye-ri nuclear test site on Thursday to demonstrate its commitment to denuclearization in advance of the planned U.S.-North Korea summit. The development came hours before President Donald Trump called off the highly anticipated meeting. The South Korean government welcomed the North's unilateral nuclear concession to help facilitate a broader agreement with the United States to completely end its nuclear weapons program in exchange for ending punishing sanctions and security guarantees. "We are hoping that this action will become the opportunity for complete denuclearization in the future," South Korea Foreign Ministry spokesman Noh Kyu-duk said. However, while the closure of the nuclear test complex is a significant symbolic gesture, analysts are skeptical it will seriously inhibit the Kim Jong Un government's ability to carry out further nuclear tests in the future. "That renders the test site unusable, but not forever and it's not like North Korea has a shortage of mountains or people to make new tunnels," said Jeffrey Lewis, the director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in California, during an interview with Vice News. North Korea conducted all six of its nuclear tests at the Punggye-ri underground site that includes at least two extensive tunnel systems, according the 38 North website that monitors the North's nuclear activities. Each nuclear test conducted at the site was progressively more powerful, with the first bomb detonated in 2006 producing an estimated 1-2 kiloton yield, much less powerful than the 16-kiloton bomb the United States used on Hiroshima during World War II, and the last test in 2017 producing close to a 250-kiloton yield. There were reports that the last nuclear test in September of 2017 triggered a tunnel collapse rendering the site unusable, but analysts say there were still two other tunnels that could be used for future tests. Earlier this year North Korean leader Kim Jong Un... Question: Why did North Korea shut down its Punggye-ri nuclear test site? Answer:
Answer:
To show commitment to denuclearization prior to the summit with the US