TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you're given a passage, further information available on a particular linked term from the statement, and a question. Your job is to generate the answer to the question by using the information provided. If there is no clear answer obtainable, output 'none'.
PROBLEM: Passage: Linda was introduced as the wife of Mick Carter, played by Danny Dyer, the brother of established character Shirley Carter (Linda Henry), who has appeared in EastEnders since 2006. Luisa Bradshaw-White joined the cast as Shirley's sister Tina Carter in early November, and Linda was the second new Carter to appear after her. Kellie Bright's casting was announced alongside Danny Dyer's on 1 October 2013, a week after Bradshaw-White's casting was revealed. Linda was described as having been with Mick since they were teenagers, and despite not being 'blessed with brains', is a 'tough woman who will always fight tooth and nail for her family - especially her children'. Bright previously appeared as a bridesmaid in 1986 at the wedding of Michelle Fowler (Susan Tully) and Lofty Holloway (Tom Watt), and starred in scenes opposite her current co-star Letitia Dean, who continues to appear as Sharon Watts. Bright estimated herself to be aged 10 at the time. She also auditioned for the role of Tanya Branning in 2006, a role that was eventually given to Jo Joyner.
 Link Information: Susan Tully (born 20 October 1967) Question: Of the characters who married in 1986, which of their actors was younger?

SOLUTION: Answer: Susan Tully

PROBLEM: Passage: While attending the University of Iowa, Whitaker played tight end for the University of Iowa Hawkeyes football team, under coach Hayden Fry, appearing in the starting lineup for Iowa's Rose Bowl game in 1991. In 2002, Whitaker was the candidate of the Republican Party for Treasurer of Iowa. From 2004 to 2009, he served as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, where he was known for aggressively prosecuting drug traffickers. Whitaker ran in the 2014 Iowa Republican primary for the United States Senate. He later wrote opinion pieces and appeared on talk-radio shows and cable news as the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), a conservative advocacy group.
 Link Information: none Question: Who was the Senate Majority Leader the year Whitaker ran for the United States Senate in the Iowa primary?

SOLUTION: Answer: none

PROBLEM: Passage: Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film three stars out of four and wrote that "the musical scenes are the best rock coverage since 'Woodstock.' The sound is first rate, for one thing, and director Pierre Adidge has some idea of why Cocker electrifies a crowd." Vincent Canby of The New York Times called the film a "most satisfying, record-album of a movie" which "patronizes neither its audience nor its stars ... It is uncluttered, one of the best concert films so far." A review in Variety said, "Considerable technical expertise has gone into this production, and though the objective may be clear, it just hasn't turned out to be another 'Woodstock,' possibly because Joe Cocker's personality isn't all that endearing." Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune rated the film three stars out of four and wrote, "'Mad Dogs' is distinguishable from other 'rockumentaries' because it deals almost exclusively with the musician and his music. There are few side trips to cultural comments." Robert Hilburn of the Los Angeles Times stated, "As a film, 'Mad Dogs and Englishmen' is a good concert. For much of the picture's 114 minutes, the camera is on Joe Cocker, by most standards the best and most exciting singer in rock music ... But 'Mad Dogs and Englishmen,' unfortunately, fails in the end to rise above this interesting, but clearly limited historical summary of the Cocker tour. As a film, it doesn't establish its own importance." A negative review by Tom Zito of The Washington Post advised readers to "Forget the film and try the record," explaining, "What emerges from all this is roughly two hours of footage that looks terrible on the screen and sounds almost as bad. The film is projected in an annoying square format, except for the moments when the screen area is broken up into some poorly coordinated split-screen effects. The camerawork is often sloppy ... the whole thing winds up looking and sounding like a cheap, imitation (indoor) 'Woodstock.'" James D. White of The Monthly Film Bulletin declared that "The music itself is excellent," but "The film's information content is minimal; and one's heart sinks as the screen is split into a double image for the first number and as the mandatory shots—of excited fans, of joint-rolling in a hotel bedroom, of an interview with a vacuous groupie—are inevitably wheeled out."
 Link Information: "Forget the film and try the record," Question: Of the newspapers that gave Mad Dogs & Englishmen a poor review, which was established last?

SOLUTION:
Answer: The Washington Post