You are given a background paragraph that describes one or more causal or qualitative relationships such as a relationship in economics or a scientific law and a story that makes use of the concepts or the relationship described in the provided paragraph. You are also given a question about the story that requires an understanding of the relationship described in the background paragraph and the story. You need to come up with an answer to the given question; the answer will be a span from either the question or the story. In order to correctly answer the given question, you need to understand the relationship mentioned in the background paragraph and should be able to use it to understand that in the story. Your answer can not consist of any word that is not mentioned in any of these: the background paragraph, the story, or the question. You can directly copy and paste a span from the story or the question while answering the given question.

Input: Consider Input: Background Paragraph: Biodiversity loss is the extinction of species (plant or animal) worldwide, and also the local reduction or loss of species in a certain habitat.

The latter phenomenon can be temporary or permanent, depending on whether the environmental degradation that leads to the loss is reversible through ecological restoration / ecological resilience or effectively permanent (e.g. through land loss). Global extinction has so far been proven to be irreversible.

Even though permanent global species loss is a more dramatic phenomenon than regional changes in species composition, even minor changes from a healthy stable state can have dramatic influence on the food web and the food chain insofar as reductions in only one species can adversely affect the entire chain (coextinction), leading to an overall reduction in biodiversity, possible alternative stable states of an ecosystem notwithstanding. Ecological effects of biodiversity are usually counteracted by its loss. Reduced biodiversity in particular leads to reduced ecosystem services and eventually poses an immediate danger for food security, also for humankind.[1]. 
Story: Two islands of identical size with similar ecosystems experienced different destinies. Caribu island, inhabited by more natives, hunted a few of the animal species there, contributing to the extinction of a few. People from Hiji island, were pescotarian, and hardly ever fished. 
Question: Which island exterminated less species of animals?

Output: Hiji.


Input: Consider Input: Background Paragraph: It would be very unadvisable to place a can of soup over a campfire without venting the can. As the can heats up, it may explode. The kinetic-molecular theory explains why. The air inside the rigid can of soup is given more kinetic energy by the heat coming from the campfire. The kinetic energy causes the air molecules to move faster and they impact the container walls more frequently and with more force. The increase in pressure inside may eventually exceed the strength of the can and it will explode. An additional factor is that the soup may begin boiling which will then aid even more gas and more pressure to the inside of the can. 
Story: A team of hikers split into two groups. Group Jones hiked north and camped there  overnight. Group George went east. Both groups made campfires and heated cans of soups. Group Jones didn't make holes in the cans, so the cans exploded. The others heated their soup cans the right way, by venting them first. 
Question: Which group's cans had the air molecules inside impact the container walls with more force?

Output: Jones.


Input: Consider Input: Background Paragraph: A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently-self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion.[1][2] A paradox involves contradictory-yet-interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time.[3][4][5]. 
Story: In ancient Greece King Juno asked two of his court philosophers, philosopher A and philosopher B, to come up with two interesting problems. Philosopher A devised a clever paradox and presented it before the court. He called the  paradox Problem A. But philosopher B didn't come up with a paradox. He too presented a clever problem which was not a paradox - he called it problem B. 
Question: Which problem would more likely to have self contradiction, prolem A or problem B?


Output: Problem A.