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.

Statement: When you hear that despite the fact that he has economists who know better, the Justice Department's Joel Klein apparently either believes or chooses to claim that this case is about path dependence, you start to wonder. Choices:  1. Joel Klein is lying about the case, and it's obvious why. 2. Joel Klein's claim that the case is about path dependence is fully backed up by his economists. 3. Joel Klein says that this case is about path dependence, even though the economists who work for him know that isn't true.
3

Statement: Much that was said about Japanese management style in the 1980s--with its supposed Zen focus and greater sense of process than outcome--was pure buncombe. Choices:  1. Much of the information about Japanese management was inaccurate. 2. The information presented on Japanese management has always been correct. 3. The information about Japaneese management in the 1990s was correct. 
1

Statement: Even if people are randomly divided into groups, the groups will automatically discriminate against each other. Choices:  1. If people are split up, the larger group will dominate. 2. If groups are split up, there is usually peace. 3. If people are split up, the groups will be against each other.

3