To answer this question, we need to understand what the passage conveys about the show business and identify which option aligns with the information provided.
The passage explains that show business imposes strict appearance standards, which led Andrea De Cruz to take a diet pill known as Slim 10 to lose weight. She acquired these pills through a colleague, and the diet pills were ultimately responsible for severe health consequences, including liver failure.
Based on the passage analysis:
Thus, the correct answer is:
Option 4: Provides diet pills through the agency of colleagues.
This option is supported by the statement in the passage that De Cruz got the diet pills from a colleague, satisfying the appearance demands of her profession.
To determine why Andrea De Cruz became seriously ill, let's analyze the provided comprehension passage.
Based on the information given in the passage, it is clear that Andrea De Cruz's severe illness was attributable to the diet pill, Slim 10. Therefore, the correct answer is:
Let's consider why the other options are incorrect:
To answer this question, we need to analyze the given comprehension passage about Andrea De Cruz and the situation regarding her health and the possible cause.
This reasoning justifies why Option 3 is correct, as it aligns with the passage's description of the medical opinion formed by the doctors after initial confusion.
The question is about Andrea De Cruz, whose life was saved after encountering a serious liver problem due to the consumption of a diet pill named Slim 10. The correct choice must reflect how Pierre Png, Andrea's fiancé, contributed to saving her life. Let's analyze the details from the comprehension passage:
The passage provides a comprehensive account of Andrea De Cruz's near-death experience due to liver failure caused by Slim 10, a diet pill. It also mentions that her fiancé, Pierre Png, played a critical role in her survival:
With this information, let's evaluate the given options:
Based on the above analysis, the correct answer is:
The question requires us to identify the effect of immunosuppressants from the given options. Let's explore each option in detail:
Given the explanation above, the correct answer is preventing the rejection of transplanted organ as per the provided comprehension data and context. The comprehension highlights Andrea De Cruz’s need to take immunosuppressants after a liver transplant due to liver failure caused by a diet pill. Although these drugs prevent organ rejection, they also make her more vulnerable to illnesses, aligning with our reasoning that immunosuppressants are vital in transplant scenarios to prevent the immune system from rejecting the new organ.
To determine the correct answer based on the given comprehension, let's assess the contextual evidence and logic:
Thus, the option that aligns with the factual and logical context of the passage is "was postponed by a year".
To determine the correct answer to the question, we need to analyze the provided comprehension text. The passage details the health crisis caused by the diet pill, Slim 10, and its consequences on individuals who consumed it.
Given this information, the correct answer is:
die in June from liver failure
Now, let's rule out the incorrect options based on the comprehension:
work for 43 years as logistics manager
The passage does not mention Selvarani Raja working for 43 years; it mentions her age being 43 at the time of her death.
manage the medical unit of Singapore Technologies
Selvarani Raja is described as a logistics manager, not a manager of a medical unit.
go bankrupt from drug addiction
There is no mention of bankruptcy or drug addiction in the passage, only a health crisis related to the consumption of a diet pill.
Therefore, based on the information provided in the comprehension passage, the correct answer is indeed that Selvarani Raja died in June from liver failure.
To understand the meaning of the word "regimens" within the context of this passage, we need to look at how it is used and the overall context provided in the comprehension passage.
The passage discusses issues related to weight loss methods and the health risks associated with certain diet products. Specifically, it mentions a variety of weight-loss products and "miracle" diet aids that people are using.
The use of the term "regimens" in this context refers to techniques or plans related to health improvement, specifically related to weight loss. This aligns with the correct option, "methods of health improvement."
Therefore, from the context provided, the correct answer is "methods of health improvement."
To determine the meaning of the word "toxicity" in the passage, we need to analyze the context in which it is used. The passage discusses the harmful effects of certain Chinese diet pills, citing severe health repercussions, including liver failure and death.
From these statements, it is clear that the term "toxicity" refers to the harmful, poisonous nature of the substances in the diet pills.
Now, let's evaluate each given option:
Therefore, the correct answer is quality of being poisonous, as it accurately captures the context in which "toxicity" is used in the passage.
The question asks which countries reported deaths caused by diet drugs. To determine the correct answer, we need to carefully analyze the provided comprehension passage and highlight any instances where the mentioned countries experienced these incidents.
From the above information, it is clear that:
Analyzing the options based on the passage:
The correct answer, therefore, is II and III only, as per the interpretation of the question's intent towards mentioning the affected areas without explicitly limiting only to direct deaths.


When people who are talking don’t share the same culture, knowledge, values, and assumptions, mutual understanding can be especially difficult. Such understanding is possible through the negotiation of meaning. To negotiate meaning with someone, you have to become aware of and respect both the differences in your backgrounds and when these differences are important. You need enough diversity of cultural and personal experience to be aware that divergent world views exist and what they might be like. You also need the flexibility in world view, and a generous tolerance for mistakes, as well as a talent for finding the right metaphor to communicate the relevant parts of unshared experiences or to highlight the shared experiences while demphasizing the others. Metaphorical imagination is a crucial skill in creating rapport and in communicating the nature of unshared experience. This skill consists, in large measure, of the ability to bend your world view and adjust the way you categorize your experiences. Problems of mutual understanding are not exotic; they arise in all extended conversations where understanding is important.
When it really counts, meaning is almost never communicated according to the CONDUIT metaphor, that is, where one person transmits a fixed, clear proposition to another by means of expressions in a common language, where both parties have all the relevant common knowledge, assumptions, values, etc. When the chips are down, meaning is negotiated: you slowly figure out what you have in common, what it is safe to talk about, how you can communicate unshared experience or create a shared vision. With enough flexibility in bending your world view and with luck and charity, you may achieve some mutual understanding.
Communication theories based on the CONDUIT metaphor turn from the pathetic to the evil when they are applied indiscriminately on a large scale, say, in government surveillance or computerized files. There, what is most crucial for real understanding is almost never included, and it is assumed that the words in the file have meaning in themselves—disembodied, objective, understandable meaning. When a society lives by the CONDUITmetaphor on a large scale, misunderstanding, persecution, and much worse are the likely products.
Later, I realized that reviewing the history of nuclear physics served another purpose as well: It gave the lie to the naive belief that the physicists could have come together when nuclear fission was discovered (in Nazi Germany!) and agreed to keep the discovery a secret, thereby sparing humanity such a burden. No. Given the development of nuclear physics up to 1938, development that physicists throughout the world pursued in all innocence of any intention of finding the engine of a new weapon of mass destruction—only one of them, the remarkable Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, took that possibility seriously—the discovery of nuclear fission was inevitable. To stop it, you would have had to stop physics. If German scientists hadn’t made the discovery when they did, French, American, Russian, Italian, or Danish scientists would have done so, almost certainly within days or weeks. They were all working at the same cutting edge, trying to understand the strange results of a simple experiment bombarding uranium with neutrons. Here was no Faustian bargain, as movie directors and other naifs still find it intellectually challenging to imagine. Here was no evil machinery that the noble scientists might hide from the problems and the generals. To the contrary, there was a high insight into how the world works, an energetic reaction, older than the earth, that science had finally devised the instruments and arrangements to coart forth. “Make it seem inevitable,” Louis Pasteur used to advise his students when they prepared to write up their discoveries. But it was. To wish that it might have been ignored or suppressed is barbarous. “Knowledge,” Niels Bohr once noted, “is itself the basis for civilization.” You cannot have the one without the other; the one depends upon the other. Nor can you have only benevolent knowledge; the scientific method doesn’t filter for benevolence. Knowledge has consequences, not always intended, not always comfortable, but always welcome. The earth revolves around the sun, not the sun around the earth. “It is a profound and necessary truth,” Robert Oppenheimer would say, “that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them.”
...Bohr proposed once that the goal of science is not universal truth. Rather, he argued, the modest but relentless goal of science is “the gradual removal of prejudices.” The discovery that the earth revolves around the sun has gradually removed the prejudice that the earth is the center of the universe. The discovery of microbes is gradually removing the prejudice that disease is a punishment from God. The discovery of evolution is gradually removing the prejudice that Homo sapiens is a separate and special creation.
If the price of a commodity increases by 25%, by what percentage should the consumption be reduced to keep the expenditure the same?
A shopkeeper marks his goods 40% above cost price and offers a 10% discount. What is his percentage profit?