You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


Vice President Mike Pence says terrorists are getting caught at the U.S.-Mexico border day after day.

In his Feb. 17, 2018, remarks in Dallas, Pence mentioned his visit the day before to the port inside the Hidalgo-Reynosa International Bridge in Hidalgo, a border town in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley.

"We’ve made progress but we still have work to do," Pence said. According to the White House transcript, Pence went on: "I learned yesterday at the Hidalgo border center that along the southern border of the United States, we actually still apprehend 1,100 individuals a day, who are attempting to enter this country illegally, including seven individuals a day who are either known or suspected terrorists."

"So men and women, let me say, we’re going to continue to work to secure our borders," Pence said next. "We’re going to reform a broken immigration system. And make no mistake about it, we’re going to build that wall," Pence said to applause.

We sought to verify Pence’s declaration that seven suspected or known terrorists are daily getting nabbed at the border.

The FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center says in a FAQ last updated in January 2017 that a "known terrorist" is an individual who’s been arrested, charged or convicted in the U.S. or abroad of a crime related to terrorism or terrorist-related activities--or a person identified as a terrorist or member of a terrorist organization "pursuant to statute, executive order, or international legal obligation pursuant to a United Nations Security Council resolution."

A suspected terrorist, the FBI says, is an individual reasonably suspected to have engaged in or currently or about to be engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism and/or terrorist activities.

Total apprehensions in border region

We didn’t draw fresh information when we asked the White House about the basis of Pence’s reference to border apprehensions. Separately, Carlos Diaz, a Customs and Border Protection spokesman, suggested that we review that agency’s latest counts of individuals apprehended by the government along the U.S.-Mexico border. In January 2018, the month before Pence spoke, CBP says, 35,822 individuals were apprehended in the Southwest Border region, which takes in the more than 2,000 miles from Brownsville, Texas, to San Diego. That breaks out to 1,155 apprehended people a day.

No data for terrorists apprehended at border

Best we could tell, though, the statistics pointed out by Diaz don’t include counts of deterred or detained terrorists or suspected terrorists--a judgment shared, when we asked for help, by Alex Nowrestah, an analyst for the Cato Institute, which published a 2016 paper finding that foreign-born terrorists who entered the country, either as immigrants or tourists, were responsible for 88 percent (or 3,024) of the 3,432 murders caused by terrorists on U.S. soil from 1975 through the end of 2015.

By email, Nowrestah told us he was unaware of statistics supporting Pence’s seven-a-day statement about the U.S.-Mexico border.

Generally, Nowrestah suggested we attempt our own ballpark estimate starting from a Department of Homeland Security table tallying "aliens" apprehended nationally in 2016 (the latest year of compiled data) by countries of origin--putting our focus on the number of individuals stopped from entering from countries that President Donald Trump seeks to bar U.S. visitors. Taking this approach, we found that 211 of the people apprehended in 2016 hailed from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen (with no one apprehended from another travel-ban country, North Korea)--less than a person a day.

An alternate claim

Another expert helped us identify a seven-a-day claim that has factual footing.

By email, David Sterman, an analyst with the New America think tank, which has compiled information on terrorist activities in the United States after 9/11, pointed out that in January 2018, the Justice Department and Homeland Security released a report supporting a seven-a-day calculation.

A government press release and the report itself each say that in 2017, Homeland Security "had 2,554 encounters with individuals on the terrorist watch list (also known as the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database) traveling to the United States," which breaks out to seven individuals a day.

Pence made such a statement during his visit to Hidalgo, according to a McAllen Monitor news story on his visit. The story quoted the vice president saying: "Homeland Security, I am told, refuses entry to seven known or suspected individuals who may have terrorist intent in this country every day, or roughly 2,500 a year."

The 2018 report says: "Where consistent with the law, such individuals are denied entry into the United States, while in some cases law enforcement authorities are notified and can take appropriate action." The report further says: "This data only includes individuals of which the United States encountered and not all of those who may have entered or attempted to enter the country undetected."

Most stopped at airports?

In Dallas, Pence said the seven daily apprehensions were taking place along the southern border. But in 2017, according to the report, most of the deterred individuals were stopped from entering by airplane--not necessarily at the border. According to the report, of the 2,554 individuals, 335 were attempting to enter by land, 2,170 were attempting to enter by air and 49 were attempting to enter by sea.

Also by email, Sterman cautioned that being on a watch list "is not the same as being a terrorism suspect. It’s a vast architecture that includes many names for varying levels of concern. Denying entry is a low bar to clear. Which is part of the reason citing this number to defend the immigration-centric counterterrorism strategy is misleading. It’s more of a sign that a lot is already done."

We sought the FBI’s comment on whether people on the watch list consists of known terrorists and suspected terrorists and didn’t immediately hear back.

Our ruling

Pence said in Dallas that "along the southern border of the U.S.," the government apprehends "seven individuals a day who are either known or suspected terrorists."

We found no facts that back up this border-specific tally. Nationally in 2017, the federal government says, Homeland Security stopped 2,554 individuals on its terrorist watch list from entering the country, which breaks out to seven people a day. Most of those individuals tried to enter by air, the government says.

We rate Pence’s claim Pants on Fire.

PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.