Given a question and a context passage, generate the answer having the word or phrase from the context passage. Here, the answer should be a shortest continous span from the passage.

Ex Input:
Context: Tobacco companies are fighting efforts in the United States and Australia to make their products less appealing. In Washington, a federal judge last week blocked the Food and Drug Administration from requiring new warning labels on cigarette packs. Judge Richard Leon ruled in a case brought by five tobacco companies. The judge temporarily stopped a new federal rule which requires large new warnings starting next September. These include color1 images such as a dead body or diseased lungs. And simple text warnings now appear. Congress called for color1 images showing the dangers of smoking, similar to what Canada does. But the tobacco companies say the new requirements approved in June violate their free speech rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Judge Leon said the FDA could not require the new labels before a lawsuit against the government is decided. Some experts say the process could take years. The judge said he believed the cigarette makers were highly likely to win their case. He said the images should be designed to appeal to emotions, rejecting government arguments that they should be purely factual. He accused the government of trying to use the labels to promote an "obvious anti-smoking agenda?" The head of an anti-smoking group, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the decision "wrong on the science and wrong on the law". About one-fifth of American adults smoke. The World Health Organization says tobacco kills nearly six mil-lion people worldwide each year. More than six hundred thousand of them are non-smokers who breathe other people's tobacco smoke. In Australia, tobacco companies want to stop what would be the world's most restrictive laws on cigarette advertising. Cigarettes could be sold only in plain olive-green packages. Only the brand name and health warnings could appear. The Senate passed the bill last week and sent it back to the Lower House to approve minor amendments . The law is to go into effect in December of next year. Tobacco companies Say the legislation violates the Australian constitution. They say it would unjustly reduce the value of their brand names and trademarks. Health Minister Nicola Roxon says the government is ready for a legal fight. 
 Question: Which country has adopted color1 images showing the dangers of smoking as warning labels?

Ex Output:
canada.


Ex Input:
Context: The Packers' utter dominance continued with another overwhelming performance over another NFC power, the Eagles. Aaron Rodgers broke Tom Brady's mark of 288 passes at home without being intercepted. The Green Bay quarterback set several other records for passing at home, including an NFL-record 29 straight touchdown passes without an interception. The Packers scored touchdowns on all three parts of the team, offense, defense, and special teams. Julius Peppers returned an interception for a touchdown, his second of the year, and Micah Hyde returned a punt for a touchdown. The Packers got going from the very beginning. They drove 75 yards on their opening drive, but had to settle for a 27-yard field goal by Crosby. After an Eagles' punt, the Packers marched on a 13 play, 88-yard drive culminating in a 4-yard touchdown pass to Davante Adams. On the drive, the Packers converted three 3rd-and-longs and took 6:47 off the clock. The Eagles punted again, but this time Micah Hyde returned the punt 75 yards for a touchdown, giving the Packers a shocking 17-0 lead. The Eagles responded on their next possession with a 33-yard field goal by Cody Parkey early in the second quarter. The Eagles, though, had no answer for the Packers' passing game. Rodgers marched the Packers 80 yards in merely 6 plays to increase the lead to 24-3 on a 27-yard touchdown pass to Jordy Nelson. After a punt, the Packers struck again. 80 yards on another time consuming drive ending with Eddie Lacy driving in a 1-yard touchdown run, but a failed two-point conversion. The Eagles reached the Packers' 15, but settled for another 33-yard field goal as the half expired. Mark Sanchez was stripped early in the 3rd quarter with Nick Perry recovering. The Eagles defense finally made a stand and forced a punt, but the Eagles were forced to punt on their responding drive. The Eagles' defense couldn't hold this time and Crosby kicked a 33-yard field goal increasing the lead to 33-6. The Eagles buried themselves on the next drive as Sanchez threw a 52-yard pick-six to Julius Peppers (with a blocked PAT), making the score 39-6. The Eagles immediately answered, driving 80 yards (with a 4th down conversion) with Sanchez throwing a 10-yard touchdown pass to Jordan Matthews. However, the Packers struck right back with an 80yard scoring drive capped off with Rodgers throwing a screen pass to Lacy who took it 32 yards for a touchdown, pushing the lead to 46-13. However, Eagles mishaps continued as Sanchez threw an interception to Tramon Williams, but Crosby missed a field goal. Then on the following drive after reaching the Packers 40, Sanchez fumbled and Hayward returned the fumble 49 yards for a touchdown, making the score a mind boggling 53-13. The Eagles were able to March 80 yards and score on a 20-yard touchdown reception by Jeremy Maclin on their next drive closing the scoring. The Packers achieved a new franchise mark, as this was the first time ever since the franchise started playing in the NFL that they scored over 50 points in consecutive games (the Packers had scored over 50 points in 6 consecutive games as a "town team" in 1919, their first season of existence.). Green Bay improved to a record of 7-3. 
 Question: Which team scored more points, Packers or Eagles?

Ex Output:
packers


Ex Input:
Context: In a New York City courthouse, an eighteen-year-old boy from a slum is on trial for allegedly stabbing his father to death. Final closing arguments having been presented, a visibly bored judge instructs the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty of murder. If there is any reasonable doubt of his guilt they are to return a verdict of not guilty. The judge further informs them that a guilty verdict will be accompanied by a mandatory death sentence.The jury retires to a private room, where the jurors spend a short while getting acquainted before they begin deliberating. It is immediately apparent that the jurors have already decided that the boy is guilty, and that they plan to return their verdict without taking time for discussion with the sole exception of Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), who is the only "not guilty" vote in a preliminary tally. He explains that there is too much at stake for him to go along with the verdict without at least talking about it first. His vote annoys the other jurors, especially Juror 7 (Jack Warden), who has tickets to a baseball game that evening; and Juror 10 (Ed Begley Sr.), who believes that people from slum backgrounds are liars, wild, and dangerous.The rest of the film's focus is the jury's difficulty in reaching a unanimous verdict. While several of the jurors harbor personal prejudices, Juror 8 maintains that the evidence presented in the case is circumstantial, and that the boy deserves a fair deliberation. He calls into question the accuracy and reliability of the only two witnesses to the murder, the "rarity" of the murder weapon (a common switchblade, of which he has an identical copy), and the overall questionable circumstances. He further argues that he cannot in good conscience vote "guilty" when he feels there is reasonable doubt of the boy's guilt.Having argued several points and gotten no favorable response from the others, Juror 8 reluctantly agrees that he has only succeeded in hanging the jury. Instead, he requests another vote, this time by secret ballot. He proposes that he will abstain from voting, and if the other 11 jurors are still unanimous in a guilty vote, then he will acquiesce to their decision. The secret ballot is held, and a new "not guilty" vote appears. This earns intense criticism from Juror 3 (Lee J. Cobb), who blatantly accuses Juror 5 (Jack Klugman) who had grown up in a slum of switching out of sympathy toward slum children. However, Juror 9 (Joseph Sweeney) reveals that he himself changed his vote, feeling that Juror 8's points deserve further discussion.Juror 8 presents a convincing argument that one of the witnesses, an elderly man who claimed to have heard the boy yell "I'm going to kill you" shortly before the murder took place, could not have heard the voices as clearly as he had testified due to an elevated train passing by at the time; as well as stating that "I'm going to kill you," is often said by people who do not literally mean it. Juror 5 changes his vote to "not guilty". Soon afterward, Juror 11 (George Voskovec) questions whether it is reasonable to suppose the defendant would have fled the scene, having cleaned the knife of fingerprints but leaving it behind, and then come back three hours later to retrieve it (having been left in his father's chest). Juror 11 then changes his vote.Juror 8 then mentions the man's second claim: upon hearing the father's body hit the floor, he had run to the door of his apartment and seen the defendant running out of the building from his front door in 15 seconds. Jurors 5, 6 and 8 question whether this is true, as the witness in question had had a stroke, limiting his ability to walk. Upon the end of an experiment, the jury finds that the witness would not have made it to the door in enough time to actually see the killer running out. Juror 8 concludes that, judging from what he claims to have heard earlier, the witness must have 
 Question: Juror number eight believes the evidence is what?

Ex Output:

consequential