In this task, you're given a statement and three sentences as choices. Your job is to determine which sentence can be inferred from the statement. Incorrect choices change the meaning in important ways or have details that are not mentioned in the statement. Indicate your answer as 1,2, or 3 corresponding to the choice number of the selected sentence.

Input: Consider Input: Statement: While they have pushed hard for open skies policies in Japan and Europe and lobbied hard against government antitrust intervention, they have been more than happy to use the legislative process to protect what amount to sinecures. Choices:  1. These policies are popular among the public. 2. Japan and Europe did not use the legislative process. 3. Japan and Europe have pushed for open skies policies.

Output: 3


Input: Consider Input: Statement: But after being forewarned, if it happens again, I'll be hard to convince that you were in the right. Choices:  1. There won't be any issues if it happens again. 2. You will be in a lot of trouble if it happens again. 3. I won't believe you if it happens again.

Output: 3


Input: Consider Input: Statement: In a sense, though, what's most striking about the WTO case is not that Kodak lost, but that it put so much energy into winning. Choices:  1. Kodak used enormous resources in the WTO case.  2. Kodak was a dog with a bone in the WTO case.  3. Kodak was easy to put down. 


Output: 1