This task involves creating answers to complex questions, from a given passage. Answering these questions, typically involve understanding multiple sentences. Make sure that your answer has the same type as the "answer type" mentioned in input. The provided "answer type" can be of any of the following types: "span", "date", "number". A "span" answer is a continuous phrase taken directly from the passage or question. You can directly copy-paste the text from the passage or the question for span type answers. If you find multiple spans, please add them all as a comma separated list. Please restrict each span to five words. A "number" type answer can include a digit specifying an actual value. For "date" type answers, use DD MM YYYY format e.g. 11 Jan 1992. If full date is not available in the passage you can write partial date such as 1992 or Jan 1992. If you find multiple spans, please add them all as a comma separated list. Please restrict each span to five words.

Passage: In week 11, the Lions visited their division rival, the Chicago Bears. The Bears scored 10 points in the first quarter via a 23-yard field goal from Connor Barth, and a one-yard touchdown pass from Mitchell Trubisky to Adam Shaheen. The Lions scored 21 points in the second quarter via a 27-yard fumble return from D. J. Hayden, a 28-yard touchdown pass from Matthew Stafford to Marvin Jones Jr. and a two-yard touchdown pass from Stafford to Ameer Abdullah. The Bears responded with a 12-yard touchdown run from Jordan Howard, to make the score 21-17 in favor of Detroit at half-time. After a scoreless third quarter, the Lions extended their lead in the fourth quarter via a 27-yard field goal from Matt Prater. The Bears responded with a 15-yard touchdown run from Tarik Cohen to tie the game. The Lions regained the lead via a 52-yard field goal from Prater. The Bears attempted comeback failed when Barth missed a potentially game-tying 46-yard field goal attempt with eight seconds remaining in the game, making the final score 27-24 in favor of Detroit. With the win, the Lions won all of their division games on the road in a season for the first time in franchise history. 
Question: How many yards longer was the longest touchdown compared to the shortest? 
Answer type: Number 
27.

Passage: Substantial increases were made in social security benefits such as injury and sickness benefits, pensions, unemployment benefits, housing allowances, basic subsistence aid allowances, and family allowances and living allowances. In the governments first budget, sickness benefits were increased by 9.3%, pensions for war widows by 25%, pensions for the war wounded by 16%, and retirement pensions by 5%. Numerically, pensions went up by 6.4% (1970), 5.5% (1971), 9.5% (1972), 11.4% (1973), and 11.2% (1974). Adjusted for changes in the annual price index, pensions went up in real terms by 3.1% (1970), 0.3% (1971), 3.9% (1972), 4.4% (1973), and 4.2% (1974). Between 1972 and 1974, the purchasing power of pensioners went up by 19%. In 1970, war pensions were increased by 16%. War victim’s pensions went up by 5.5% in January 1971, and by 6.3% in January 1972. By 1972, war pensions for orphans and parents had gone up by around 40%, and for widows by around 50%. Between 1970 and 1972, the “Landabgaberente” (land transfer pension) went up by 55%. Between 1969 and 1974, the average real standard rate of income support rose (in 1991 prices) from around 300 DM to around 400 DM. Between 1970 and 1974, unemployment benefits rose from around 300 euros to around 400 euros per month, and unemployment assistance from just under 200 euros per month to just under 400 euros per month. In 2001 prices, the average standard social assistance benefit level rose from around 200 euros per month in 1969 to over 250 euros per month in 1974. During most of Brandt’s years as chancellor, the majority of benefits increased as a percentage of average net earnings. 
Question: Between how many years did the average real standard rate of income support from 300 DM to around 400 DM? 
Answer type: Number 
5.

Passage: The Cochrane Library had 145 CAM-related Cochrane systematic reviews and 340 non-Cochrane systematic reviews. An analysis of the conclusions of only the 145 Cochrane reviews was done by two readers. In 83% of the cases, the readers agreed. In the 17% in which they disagreed, a third reader agreed with one of the initial readers to set a rating. These studies found that, for CAM, 38.4% concluded positive effect or possibly positive (12.4%), 4.8% concluded no effect, 0.7% concluded harmful effect, and 56.6% concluded insufficient evidence. An assessment of conventional treatments found that 41.3% concluded positive or possibly positive effect, 20% concluded no effect, 8.1% concluded net harmful effects, and 21.3% concluded insufficient evidence. However, the CAM review used the more developed 2004 Cochrane database, while the conventional review used the initial 1998 Cochrane database. 
Question: How many percent of readers did not conclude insufficient evidence? 
Answer type: Number 

43.4.