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.

[EX Q]: Statement: The thundering Republican condemnations of the special prosecutor back then are just like the thundering Democratic condemnations today, down to the very phrase, four years and $40 million. Choices:  1. The thundering Republic condemnations back then are similar in many ways to the thundering Democratic condemnations of today.  2. The thundering Republican condemnations are in no way similar to the thundering Democratic condemnations. 3. The thundering Republican condemnations are four years and $40 million. 
[EX A]: 3

[EX Q]: Statement: OMB Circular 50 provides the policies and procedures for use by executive agencies when considering reports issued by GAO and Inspectors General, other executive branch audit organizations, and nonfederal auditors where follow-up is necessary; and OMB Circular A-123 addresses internal management control systems. Choices:  1. OMB Circular A-123 addresses internal management control systems. 2. OMB Circular A-123 wrote negative remarks about control systems. 3. OMB Circular A-123 made no comments on the control systems.
[EX A]: 1

[EX Q]: Statement: John (Peter Sarsgaard), one of his future rapists and murderers, calls him little buddy and seems almost attracted to him; Sarsgaard's performance is a finely chiseled study of how unresolved emotion can suddenly resolve itself into violence. Choices:  1. John seemed to be borderline attracted to him. 2. There are a number of critics who felt that Sarsgaard turned in an incredible performance. 3. John calls him a little worm and seems to be borderline disgusted with him.
[EX A]:
1