You are given a background paragraph that describes one or more causal or qualitative relationships such as a relationship in economics or a scientific law and a story that makes use of the concepts or the relationship described in the provided paragraph. You are also given a question about the story that requires an understanding of the relationship described in the background paragraph and the story. You need to come up with an answer to the given question; the answer will be a span from either the question or the story. In order to correctly answer the given question, you need to understand the relationship mentioned in the background paragraph and should be able to use it to understand that in the story. Your answer can not consist of any word that is not mentioned in any of these: the background paragraph, the story, or the question. You can directly copy and paste a span from the story or the question while answering the given question.

Example Input: Background Paragraph: Regions on the Earth's surface (or in its atmosphere) that are high above mean sea level are referred to as high altitude. High altitude is sometimes defined to begin at 2,400 meters (8,000 ft) above sea level.[5][6][7]

At high altitude, atmospheric pressure is lower than that at sea level. This is due to two competing physical effects: gravity, which causes the air to be as close as possible to the ground; and the heat content of the air, which causes the molecules to bounce off each other and expand.[8]. 
Story: There was a competition for who can get their yellow drone the highest into the air. Team A got it 2,551 ft. Team B got it 3,551 ft. Team C go it 4,541 ft. Team D got it 5,531 ft. Team E got it 10,521 ft. Team F got it 13,571 ft. Team G got it 14,581 ft. Team G won the contest and got a big gold trophy as the prize. 
Question: What team got their drone into high altitude: Team A or Team F?
Example Output: Team F.

Example Input: Background Paragraph: The trade-off theory of capital structure is the idea that a company chooses how much debt finance and how much equity finance to use by balancing the costs and benefits. The classical version of the hypothesis goes back to Kraus and Litzenberger[1] who considered a balance between the dead-weight costs of bankruptcy and the tax saving benefits of debt. Often agency costs are also included in the balance. This theory is often set up as a competitor theory to the pecking order theory of capital structure. A review of the literature is provided by Frank and Goyal.[2]

An important purpose of the theory is to explain the fact that corporations usually are financed partly with debt and partly with equity. It states that there is an advantage to financing with debt, the tax benefits of debt and there is a cost of financing with debt, the costs of financial distress including bankruptcy costs of debt and non-bankruptcy costs (e.g. staff leaving, suppliers demanding disadvantageous payment terms, bondholder/stockholder infighting, etc.). The marginal benefit of further increases in debt declines as debt increases, while the marginal cost increases, so that a firm that is optimizing its overall value will focus on this trade-off when choosing how much debt and equity to use for financing. 
Story: Company X stopped taking on more debt, and decided to file for bankruptcy, while company Y, kept benefiting from the tax benefits of debt, having a lower debt level. 
Question: Which company discharged more debt, company X or company Y?
Example Output: company X.

Example Input: Background Paragraph: As for the public health or food safety concern, organic foods are intended to be healthy, free of contaminations and free from agents that could cause human diseases. Organic milk is meant to have no chemical residues to consumers, and the restrictions on the use of antibiotics and chemicals in organic food production has the purpose to accomplish this goal. Although dairy cows in both organic and conventional farming practices can be exposed to pathogens, it has been shown that, because antibiotics are not permitted as a preventative measure in organic practices, there are far fewer antibiotic resistant pathogens on organic farms. This dramatically increases the efficacy of antibiotics when/if they are necessary. 
Story: Two farmers sold their produce and milk on a large nearby market. John practiced organic farming and also produced organic milk, while Danny sold non-organic produce and milk. 
Question: Which farmer didn't sell milk with no chemical residues?
Example Output:
Danny.