TASK DEFINITION: Given a context passage, generate a question from the passage such that its answer is shortest continous span from the passage.
PROBLEM: Lighter and cheaper than high-quality video cameras, today's best smartphones can shoot and edit high-definition (HD) videos. With lower-quality lenses and image sensors, smartphones probably won't replace professional video cameras anytime soon. Still, some creative filmmakers are extending the borders of smartphone moviemaking by shooting professional-quality films using only smartphones. Soon after Apple's iPhone 4 was released, two filmmakers decided to make a short film using only their iPhone 4s. Michael Koerbel and Anna Elizabeth James shot and edited the one-and-a-half-minute film Apple of My Eye in only 48 hours. Audiences were fascinated with the film, in which a man and his grandfather connect emotionally while admiring a model train set in a store window. The filmmakers followed up their success with Goldilocks, an extraordinary spy novel told over nine, three-minute films. Many filmmakers are convinced that smartphone films are here to stay. One sign is their inclusion in major film festivals. In February 2012, organizers of the Berkshire International Film Festival staged the 10 X 10 On North Festival. Entries included Oliver by Hooman Khalili, an award-winning film about a girl whose special powers enable her to brighten the lives of three lonely people. Another entry was Yearlapse'11, a 365-second film by Zsolt Haraszti that describes an actual journey he made from New York to London. During the festival, which ran from February 16 to 26, these and many other smartphone films were shown at the Beacon Cinema in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Similar festivals in Canada and South Korea have given smartphone filmmakers opportunities to show off their creative work.

SOLUTION: Which film is about secret agents?

PROBLEM: Judge Dan Haywood (Spencer Tracy) arrives in Nuremberg in 1948 to preside over the trial of four Nazi judges, each charged with having abused the court system to help cleanse Germany of the politically and socially undesirable, allegedly guilty of war crimes. The opening statement of the prosecuting attorney (Richard Widmark) is a vicious one, depicting the defendants as having been willing, evil, accomplices in Nazi atrocities, but Judge Haywood wonders if it is really that simple.Confounded at how one defendant, a renowned German champion of justice named Ernst Janning (Burt Lancaster), appears to have played the greatest role in molding Germany's Ministry of Justice into a destructive instrument of Nazism, Judge Haywood resolves to gain some perspective on the period in which the German legal system strayed from a course of entirely objective justice.Probing for the truth proves difficult, though, as nobody who lived in Germany during Nazism seems to admit to having much inside knowledge. He befriends Mrs. Bertholt (Marlene Dietrich), the widow of an executed Nazi army officer, but she offers few insights, more consumed by her personal experiences than the broader matters of Nazism. Mrs. Bertholt is focusing on being a catalyst for the cultural rebirth of Nuremberg, keen on remolding the image of a city that had become notorious as the site of the Nazi raliies. An attempt to discuss the period with his housekeepers, Mr. and Mrs. Halbestadt, who had lived near the Dachau concentration camp, proves equally fruitless for Judge Haywood, as they cannot help but focus on the loss of their child in the bombing and the fact that they nearly starved from poverty. Whether anyone knew anything mattered little, for Germans were looking forward, not backward, still grappling with, and recovering from, the hardships and losses that the war brought to them and their families.Only in the courtroom will Judge Haywood have the opportunity to gain insights into the realities of the period. First hand evidence of a) all German judges having sworn to a Nazi oath of allegiance, b) human sterilization orders signed by the defendants and carried out, and c) the execution of a Jew merely for having relations with a non-Jew, painted an evil picture of the ways in which the law had been applied by the defendants during Nazism. Still, Judge Haywood cannot fully come to grips with why these judges had been willing to enforce the law in such a horrific manner. Not, at least, until the defendant Ernst Janning feels compelled to make a statement, against the advice of his counsel (Maximilian Schell).In his statement made under oath, Janning speaks of how economically-stricken Germany had become a nation of fearful, desperate people, and how only such a people could submit to Nazism. Hitler's promises, Janning explained, in which he openly vowed the elimination of those accountable for Germany's hardships were, at first, soothing and reassuring to them. Janning then noted that, even once the complicit realized the unconscionability and inhumanity of Hitler's approach, they stayed at their posts to help things from getting even worse, but, predictably, failed to derail the atrocities of the times. He explained that national allegiance had motivated most of them to the point that they sacrificed their own personal senses of morality. In a deeply personal, yet self-damning, statement, he conceded that most of them should have known better, and that those that had gone along had betrayed Germany.At long last, the issue at the heart of the case becomes clear to Judge Haywood - the choice that the defendants had to make was between allegiance to their country and allegiance to their own senses of right and wrong. Understanding the times and context in which the actions of the defendants took place, Judge Haywood is ready to pass judgment on the defendants. He sentences each to life imprisonment, noting that their actions were illegal under both International law and German law, and further notes that they were men of sufficient intellect, prominence and credibility in Germany that their refusal to help transform the German court system into an institution that, systematically, denied justice to enemies of the Third Reich might have made a difference.As noted in

SOLUTION: how many defendants are found guilty and sentenced to life in prison?

PROBLEM: "An apple a day keeps the doctor away" is one of the most common sayings in the English languages. This is because apples were one of the first foods that medical professionals recognized as healthy---their benefits became obvious when, quite simply, doctors found that people who ate apples were sick less often than those who did not. Today we have a more specific understanding of why apples are so beneficial to overall health. Apples can help keep your levels of bad cholesterol down. The pectin in apples helps you to maintain cardiovascular health and reduce LDL cholesterol(which is the "bad" kind). Apples themselves do not add cholesterol to your diet and are full of water and fiber to help weaken the cholesterol in other foods you might digest. According to Health Diaries, people who eat two apples per day may lower their cholesterol by as much as 16 percent. Apples are naturally low in calories and high in water content. Eating an apple can satisfy your hunger and keep you from reaching for high-sugar, high-calories snacks. By eating apples, you will be more able to maintain a healthy weight because they fill you up, potentially stopping you from eating food that encourages a waistline increase. Apples contain considerable levels of boron , which helps build healthy bones, and can also prevent diseases like arthritis. Apples are rich in vitamin C, which is known to help build immunity. Studies have shown that apples can decrease the risk of breast cancer and liver cancer. One theory is that the apple skins are responsible for this, so be sure not to take apple skins off before you eat them, as you could remove some of the health benefits.

SOLUTION:
Which plays an important role in reducing the risk of breast cancer?