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]


958 F.2d 368
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.Walter Manuel Tapia REYES, Petitioner,v.The UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL;  U.S. Immigration &Naturalization Service, Respondents.
No. 91-2181.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 10, 1992.Decided March 16, 1992.As Amended April 27, 1992.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration and Naturalization Service
Luis F. Salgado, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Stuart M. Gerson, Assistant Attorney General, Robert Kendall, Jr., Assistant Director, Lisa Dornell, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
I.N.S.
AFFIRMED.
Before PHILLIPS, WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:


1
Walter Manuel Tapia Reyes appeals from the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("Board") affirming an immigration judge's order of deportation and denial of discretionary waiver relief pursuant to sections 241(a)(11) and 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a)(11) (West Supp.1991) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1988).   Because we find no abuse of discretion in any aspect of the Board's order, we affirm.


2
Walter Manuel Tapia Reyes entered the United States in 1979 without inspection by an immigration officer.   He became a lawful permanent resident of this Country upon marriage to a United States citizen in 1980.


3
In 1987 Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and distribution of more than one kilogram of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1988), and filing a false income tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) (1988) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1988).   Deportation proceedings were initiated by an Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing issued on June 2, 1988, pursuant to section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("Act"), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252 (West 1970 & Supp.1991).   Due to the drug conviction, Petitioner was found deportable under section 241(a)(11) of the Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1251(a)(11) (West Supp.1991).   Petitioner appealed the subsequent order of deportation and applied for a waiver of inadmissibility under section 212(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1988).


4
The Board affirmed the immigration judge's finding of deportability as well as the denial of Petitioner's application for waiver relief from deportation under section 212(c).   In so doing, the Board rejected Petitioner's three main arguments:  that the immigration judge erred in not giving sufficient weight to the hardship to his family which would result from deportation;  that the immigration judge erred in finding no rehabilitation despite the fact that Petitioner had only abused cocaine for a two-year period from 1984 to 1986;  and that outstanding equities were sufficient to merit relief, to wit, that he has a United States citizen child, resident children, and that he is a dependable worker.   The Board found no abuse of discretion by the immigration judge and found Petitioner undeserving of relief.   It therefore dismissed his appeal.


5
Petitioner has raised the following issues on appeal:


6
1. Whether the Board abused its discretion in denying oral argument.


7
2. Whether the Board abused its discretion in denying the application for waiver of inadmissibility and ordering deportation.


8
As to the first issue presented, there is no right to oral argument in appeals before the Board.   Rather, the decision whether to grant argument is discretionary with the Board.  8 C.F.R. § 3.1(e) (1991).   The facts were sufficiently presented in the materials before the Board at the time of its decision, and Petitioner has not stated how argument would have aided his case.   We find no abuse of discretion in the Board's denial of argument.


9
There is also no merit to Petitioner's contention that the Board abused its discretion in denying his application for waiver relief.   Such waivers are discretionary.   See McLean v. INS, 901 F.2d 204, 205 (1st Cir.1990) (standard of review in discretionary waiver cases);   Variamparambil v. INS, 831 F.2d 1362, 1366 (7th Cir.1987);  8 C.F.R. § 212.3 (1991).


10
The agency's findings of fact are entitled to deference on appeal.   See Martin-Mendoza v. INS, 499 F.2d 918, 920 (9th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1113 (1975).   There is no reason to disturb the Board's credibility determination or factual finding of no rehabilitation.   The Board took into account Petitioner's return to prison after being rearrested shortly after his release on parole, as well as his refusal to undergo drug abuse counseling, before concluding that Petitioner had not been rehabilitated.


11
The Board's opinion denying discretionary relief not only rejects Petitioner's assignments of error regarding the immigration judge's decision, but independently states its own reasons for denying relief.   The Board weighed the equities in this case and concluded that Petitioner's one conviction was sufficiently serious in the context of his long and extensive involvement in a drug distribution ring.   Moreover, it noted that while Petitioner's family ties do present an outstanding equity, he never showed that he could not financially support his family from Peru.   Other family members will also remain in the United States and may provide assistance, as they have when Petitioner was in prison.


12
Because the Board based its decision on a reasoned and legitimate weighing of the circumstances of the case, it acted within its discretion in ruling as it did.   For these reasons, we grant Respondent's Motion for Summary Affirmance.   We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.


13
AFFIRMED.