This task is about creating an unanswerable question based on a given passage. Construct a question that looks relevant to the given context but is unanswerable. Following are a few suggestions about how to create unanswerable questions:
(i) create questions which require satisfying a constraint that is not mentioned in the passage
(ii) create questions which require information beyond what is provided in the passage in order to answer
(iii) replace an existing entity, number, date mentioned in the passage with other entity, number, date and use it in the question
(iv) create a question which is answerable from the passage and then replace one or two words by their antonyms or insert/remove negation words to make it unanswerable.

Passage: Even though some proofs of complexity-theoretic theorems regularly assume some concrete choice of input encoding, one tries to keep the discussion abstract enough to be independent of the choice of encoding. This can be achieved by ensuring that different representations can be transformed into each other efficiently.
What can not be achieved by ensuring different representations can transformed into each other efficiently?

Passage: Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman argues that, although the term intellectual property is in wide use, it should be rejected altogether, because it "systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion". He claims that the term "operates as a catch-all to lump together disparate laws [which] originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues" and that it creates a "bias" by confusing these monopolies with ownership of limited physical things, likening them to "property rights". Stallman advocates referring to copyrights, patents and trademarks in the singular and warns against abstracting disparate laws into a collective term.
What term does Richard Stallman support using?

Passage: Cardinals have in canon law a "privilege of forum" (i.e., exemption from being judged by ecclesiastical tribunals of ordinary rank): only the pope is competent to judge them in matters subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction (cases that refer to matters that are spiritual or linked with the spiritual, or with regard to infringement of ecclesiastical laws and whatever contains an element of sin, where culpability must be determined and the appropriate ecclesiastical penalty imposed). The pope either decides the case himself or delegates the decision to a tribunal, usually one of the tribunals or congregations of the Roman Curia. Without such delegation, no ecclesiastical court, even the Roman Rota, is competent to judge a canon law case against a cardinal. Cardinals are, however, subject to the civil and criminal law like everybody else.

What does the privilege of democracy guarantee cardinals and popes?