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]



757 P.2d 345 (1988)
Leslie G. WHEELER and Wilda J. Wheeler, husband and Wife, Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
CITY OF BOZEMAN, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant and Respondent.
No. 87-345.
Supreme Court of Montana.
Submitted on Briefs May 12, 1988.
Decided June 28, 1988.
Lyman H. Bennett, III, Bozeman, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Bruce Becker, City Atty., Bozeman, H. William Coder, Great Falls, for defendant and respondent.
HUNT, Justice.
Plaintiffs Leslie G. Wheeler and Wilda I. Wheeler, husband and wife, appeal the order of the District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, Gallatin County, denying plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. We affirm.
The issues raised on appeal are:
*346 1. Whether the District Court erred by refusing to grant plaintiffs' proposed instruction no. 15, instructing the jury that a municipality has a duty to keep its sewers in repair?
2. Whether the District Court erred by refusing to grant a new trial on the basis that no substantial evidence existed to support the verdict?
Leslie and Wilda Wheeler operate a physical fitness and health center out of their residence in Bozeman. Leslie Wheeler initiated this business as a result of his interest in physical fitness. The business had its beginning in the Wheelers' garage, but by 1981 the Wheelers decided to expand their existing facilities.
The first expansion of the facilities occurred during the early part of 1982 and the second expansion was completed in early 1983, when the Wheelers built a 15 foot addition to their residence with an 8 foot basement. This newly built basement contained a hot tub which protruded 2 to 2 ½ feet below the basement floor. In both instances, the City of Bozeman issued building permits to the Wheelers for the construction.
Beginning in 1983, the Wheelers began experiencing water flooding into their new basement. The Wheelers experienced nine floods between June 19, 1983 and May 31, 1986. In an attempt to solve the problems resulting from the floodings, the Wheelers installed a sump pump in their basement, two drain ditches, and a sump tank.
The Wheelers informed the City of Bozeman about the floodings and the City of Bozeman responded by cleaning out the silt and roots from the storm sewer drain located directly south of the newly built basement. Nonetheless, the floodings continued. The Wheelers brought this action in front of a jury in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, arguing that the City of Bozeman was negligent in designing, installing, and maintaining the storm sewer system located near the Wheelers' residence. After a three day trial, the jury found the City of Bozeman not negligent in designing, installing and maintaining the storm sewer. The Wheelers' appealed.
The first issue the Wheelers raise on appeal is whether the District Court erred by refusing to grant plaintiffs' proposed instruction no. 15? This instruction states that:
You are instructed that the duty of a municipality to keep its sewers in repair involves the exercise of a reasonable degree of watchfulness in ascertaining their condition from time to time, preventing them from becoming dilapidated or obstructed. Where the obstruction or dilapidation is an ordinary result of the use of the sewer, which ought to be anticipated and could be guarded against by occasional examination and cleaning, the omission to make such examination and keep the sewers clear is a neglected duty which renders the municipality liable.
The District Court refused this instruction as well as defendant's proposed instructions no. 21 and 24 which states as follows:
Defendant's Proposed Instruction No. 21
The duty of Bozeman to inspect, repair and maintain its storm drain system is a duty of ordinary care, and it is not required to dig up its storm drain system to conduct such inspection and maintenance.
Defendant's Proposed Instruction No. 24
The City of Bozeman is not liable for stoppages of its storm drains which are caused by objects or materials thrown into the system by others.
In refusing plaintiffs' proposed instruction no. 15 and defendant's proposed instructions no. 21 and 24, the District Court noted that the case was already being given to the jury on the basis of negligence, contributory negligence, and nuisance. The instructions given regarding negligence and contributory negligence were as follows:

*347 Instruction No. 10

Every person is responsible for injury to the person or property of another caused by want of ordinary care or skill. When used in these instructions, negligence means want of such ordinary care or skill. Such want of ordinary care or skill exists when there is a failure to do that which a reasonable and prudent person would ordinarily have done under the circumstances of the situation, or doing what such person under the existing circumstances would not have done.
Instruction No. 11
Contributory negligence is negligence on the part of a claimant which contributed as a proximate cause to his injury.
Instruction No. 12
A proximate cause of an injury is that cause which in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new and independent cause, produces the injury, and without which it would not have occurred.
Instruction No. 13
Every person who suffers a detriment from the unlawful act or omission of a municipal corporation may recover from the municipal corporation a compensation therefore in money which is called damages. In this case, detriment is the loss or harm suffered. The measure of damages is the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused thereby herein defined, whether it could have been anticipated or not.
Refusing an instruction which has been adequately covered by other instructions is not reversible error. Burns v. U & R Express (Mont. 1981), 624 P.2d 487, 489, 38 St.Rep. 302, 304-05; Holland v. Konda (1963), 142 Mont. 536, 545, 385 P.2d 272, 277. In the present case, the instructions as a whole adequately informed the jury on the issues of negligence, including the duty of the City of Bozeman, proximate cause and damages. Therefore, the District Court's refusal to give plaintiffs' proposed instruction no. 15 is not reversible error.
The second issue the Wheelers raise on appeal is whether the District Court erred by refusing to grant a new trial on the basis that no substantial evidence existed to support the verdict. The law is well settled in this area. When determining whether substantial evidence exists to support the verdict, this Court must review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party. Kukuchka v. Ziemet (Mont. 1985), 710 P.2d 1361, 1363, 42 St. Rep. 1916, 1917; Anderson v. Jacqueth (1983), 205 Mont. 493, 495, 668 P.2d 1063, 1064; Gunnels v. Hoyt (Mont. 1981), 633 P.2d 1187, 1191, 38 St.Rep. 1492, 1495; Groundwater v. Wright (1979), 180 Mont. 27, 29, 588 P.2d 1003, 1004. The evidence may be inherently weak and still be considered substantial. Local Union No. 400 of Intern. Union v. Bosh (Mont. 1986), 715 P.2d 36, 42, 43 St.Rep. 388, 394; Anderson, 205 Mont. at 495, 668 P.2d at 1064; Gunnels, 633 P.2d at 1191, 38 St.Rep. at 1495; In the Matter of the Estate of Holm (1979), 179 Mont. 375, 379, 588 P.2d 531, 534. Further, when conflicting evidence exist, the credibility and weight given to the conflicting evidence is within the jury's province. Mountain West Farm Mutual Insurance Co. v. Girton (Mont. 1985), 697 P.2d 1362, 1363, 42 St.Rep. 500, 501; Kukuchka, 710 P.2d at 1363, 42 St.Rep. at 1917; Gee v. Egbert (Mont. 1984), 679 P.2d 1194, 1203, 41 St.Rep. 515, 525.
The Wheelers contend that substantial evidence does not exist to support the jury's verdict, arguing that their expert witness testified "conclusively" that the water entering the Wheelers' basement came from the City of Bozeman's storm sewer system and that the City of Bozeman could not produce any evidence indicating "conclusively" the source of the water. We disagree.
The jury had an opportunity to hear testimony concerning the source of the water from two expert witnesses. The Wheelers' expert witness testified that the source of the water resulted from the City of Bozeman's negligence. On the other hand, the *348 City of Bozeman offered contrary evidence through another expert witness stating that the water in the Wheelers' basement may have resulted from the naturally high ground water in the area in combination with the Wheelers' basement and hot tub protruding more than 10 feet below the surface. The jury, after hearing the conflicting evidence, determined that the water in the Wheelers' basement was not a result of the City of Bozeman's negligence. The credibility and weight given to the testimony of each of these expert witnesses is within the province of the jury, not this Court. We wil not second guess the jury when, as in this case, substantial evidence exists to support the jury's verdict.
Affirmed.
TURNAGE, C.J., and HARRISON, McDONOUGH and SHEEHY, JJ., concur.