Literature and the Holocaust have a complicated relationship. This isn't to say, of course, that the pairing isn't a fruitful one—the Holocaust has influenced, if not defined, nearly every Jewish writer since, from Saul Bellow to Jonathan Safran Foer, and many non-Jews besides, like W.G. Sebald and Jorge Semprun. Still, literature qua art—innately concerned with representation and appropriation—seemingly stands opposed to the immutability of the Holocaust and our oversized obligations to its memory. Good literature makes artistic demands, flexes and contorts narratives, resists limpid morality, compromises reality's details. Regarding the Holocaust, this seems unconscionable, even blasphemous. The horrors of Auschwitz and Buchenwald need no artistic amplification.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
You did not include the article or the link to access it. Without that information, we do not know specifically what you are referring to.
However, trying to help, we can comment on the following terms.
There is an article titled <em>"Slowing Gulf Stream Current to Boost Warming for 20 Years,"</em> written by Matt McGrath on July 19, 2018, that exposes the concerns of environmental scientists about the issue of how the gulf stream is slowing down and the effects this could have in the short and medium terms.
One of the consequences of this phenomenon could be the cooling of Europe and other parts of the world in a relatively short period. Scientists think that this situation and the melting of the ice caps in the North Pole will add to the severity of the cooling of the world, and the consequences for humans.
The last option is correct. The passage uses a specific example, but the main idea of the passage is that the systems in our body are connected, so laughter (because it’s a sign of happiness) can relieve stress and boost our immune system.
