In this task, you are given a question and a context passage. You have to answer the question based on the given passage.

Ex Input:
Did more United States or Polish troops enter Iraq?, Context: After the lengthy Iraq disarmament crisis culminated with an American demand that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein leave Iraq, which was refused, a coalition led by the United States and the United Kingdom fought the Iraqi army in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Approximately 250,000 United States troops, with support from 45,000 British, 2,000 Australian and 200 Polish combat forces, entered Iraq primarily through their staging area in Kuwait. (Turkey had refused to permit its territory to be used for an invasion from the north.) Coalition forces also supported Iraqi Kurdish militia, estimated to number upwards of 50,000. After approximately three weeks of fighting, Hussein and the Ba'ath Party were forcibly removed, followed by 9 years of military presence by the United States and the coalition fighting alongside the newly elected Iraqi government against various insurgent groups.

Ex Output:
United States


Ex Input:
What is not a source of interspersed repeats: transposable elements or genome evolution?, Context: Interspersed repeats mainly come from transposable elements (TEs), but they also include some protein coding gene families and pseudogenes. Transposable elements are able to integrate into the genome at another site within the cell. It is believed that TEs are an important driving force on genome evolution of higher eukaryotes. TEs can be classified into two categories, Class 1 (retrotransposons) and Class 2 (DNA transposons).

Ex Output:
genome evolution


Ex Input:
What is a jury supposed to talk about when it comes to the defendant?, Context: The United States Supreme Court in Penry v. Lynaugh and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Bigby v. Dretke have been clear in their decisions that jury instructions in death penalty cases that do not ask about mitigating factors regarding the defendant's mental health violate the defendant's Eighth Amendment rights, saying that the jury is to be instructed to consider mitigating factors when answering unrelated questions. This ruling suggests that specific explanations to the jury are necessary to weigh mitigating factors.

Ex Output:

defendant's mental health