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: 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.
[EX A]: 3

[EX Q]: Statement: Depending on how much time you have, you may want to combine two or three of the regions in order to get a sense of the great diversity of French Paris and the wine country, the mountains, or the Atlantic or Mediterranean coasts. Choices:  1. The diversity of French Paris is one that can't be found anywhere else. 2. It's a good idea to combine several regions in order to get a sense of the diversity of France. 3. France is a one dimensional tourist attraction.
[EX A]: 2

[EX Q]: Statement: i don't really have much more to say Choices:  1. I don't have a lot left to say. 2. I don't have anything else to say. 3. I have plenty more to say.
[EX A]:
2