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

Q: As his days in office wane, U.S. President Barack Obama is pushing to commute sentences of non-violent drug offenders convicted under what the White House called "outdated and unduly harsh" sentencing laws. It has become the centerpiece of his effort to reform the country's criminal-justice system, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world.
Last Friday, the President granted commutations to 42 convicted nonviolent offenders, bringing the total so far in his presidency to 348 commutations — more than any president has in nearly half a century. His predecessor, George W. Bush granted clemency in just 11 cases.
It's not just Obama pushing for reform. Top Republicans and Democrats in Congress also support relaxing the sentencing laws that have tripled the federal and state prison populations in the last 30 years, reaching more than 1.56 million inmates at the end of 2014.
However in Congress, the main legislative effort for sentencing changes, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015, has failed to pass either chamber of Congress. The bill would reduce long mandatory minimum sentences for many nonviolent drug crimes, give judges more control over the terms of punishment and provide inmates with more opportunities to get out early by participating in rehabilitation programs.
Failing congressional help, Obama has in recent months relied on his presidential powers to commute the sentences of non-violent offenders.
Under the Constitution, the president has the power to grant "pardons for offenses against the United States" or to commute federal sentences. A pardon is an act of presidential forgiveness and wipes away any remaining legal liabilities from a conviction. A commutation reduces a sentence but does not eliminate a conviction or restore civil rights lost as a result of the conviction.
The American Bar Association has joined Obama's push and put its support behind the Clemency Project 2014, a national effort by multiple justice groups to help inmates who meet U.S. Department of Justice criteria apply for sentence commutations. Question: Who pushed for lighter sentences for non-violent drug offenders?

A: Obama
****
Q: It has become increasingly common for academics to use social media to communicate with wider audiences. Twitter, like many other social platforms, typically measures success in terms of numbers of followers, likes and retweets, but this only tells us something about the spreading of messages but not necessarily whether the content of the messages is understood or embraced. One way to ascertain this is through network and language analysis, which, used together, can tell us how effective the communication is.
Economists tweet less, mention fewer people and have fewer conversations with strangers than a comparable group of experts in the sciences, and use less accessible language with words that are more complex, with more abbreviations and with a more distant tone. Their tweets are less personal and less inclusive than those used by scientists.
This is what appeared in April 2017 when we gathered data on tens of thousands of tweets from the Twitter accounts of both the top 25 economists and 25 scientists as identified by IDEAS and Science, including the top three economists at the time, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Erik Brynjolfsson and, on the other side, the top three scientists, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, and Richard Dawkins. At that time those accounts covered roughly two thirds of all the following.
The timing is significant because 2016 has been declared the year of post-truth politics, the year in which appeals to emotions (pathos) superseded the significance of factual evidence-based information (logos), affecting people's constructions and interpretations of events. This has been accompanied by the growing prominence of political "alt" movements (e.g. UKIP, the Alt-right) and their aggressive, provocative, and populist narratives, and "fake news" leading to political shock events such as Brexit and the Trump election.
The relatively low traction of economists in these public debates has been and continues to be an important issue. Does the public not trust economists? Don't they understand what economists do and how they work? Is their work misrepresented in the media? And how do economists themselves interact with public opinion? Question: Who's tweets' were analyzed?

A: Paul krugman
****
Q: Dietary supplements are big business, with around half of the Australian population using at least one type per year; most commonly a multivitamin and mineral pill. Many people take supplements as a form of dietary insurance in case they are not meeting their nutrient needs from foods alone. Others take them as a form of health insurance – to protect against certain diseases. Some just take them out of habit.
Supplements do have a role to play in some situations. People with a diagnosed deficiency, those with malabsorption conditions, women planning pregnancy, and people with very poor diets all can benefit from specific nutrient supplementation.
But what about the benefit of supplements across the broad population? The mantra of most health professionals, which is even etched on the label of many supplements, is that supplements may only be of assistance if dietary sources are lacking.
To see if this is supported by solid evidence, a systematic review of 63 clinical trials involving some form of supplementation in non-pregnant adults was carried out by a team of medical researchers.
The clinical trials were broad in their nature with many nutrients studied including vitamins A, B6, B12, C, D and E; folic acid; calcium; selenium, omega-3 fatty acids; ginkgo biloba; glucosamine; saw palmetto; and milk thistle. All of the studies were randomised controlled trials and evaluated a range of health outcomes including risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, bone fractures, cognitive function and all-cause mortality.
From the 63 studies, no benefit was seen in 45 studies with 10 of these showing a trend towards harm and just two showing a trend towards a benefit. Of the remaining studies, four showed harm with a greater risk of cancer with beta-carotene and a higher risk of fractures with a once-yearly dose of vitamin D.
One study showed a lower risk of cancer with selenium supplementation, but this was not validated in much larger trials. Twelve studies showed a benefit and these mostly involved vitamin D supplementation in elderly people or omega-3 fatty acids in people with cardiovascular disease. Question: Who are those largely known for using supplements?

A:
the Australians
****
