In this task, you're given a statement, and three sentences as choices. Your job is to determine which sentence clearly disagrees with the statement. Indicate your answer as '1', '2', or '3' corresponding to the choice number of the selected sentence.

Q: Statement: Luckily for Mr. Inglethorp, he had been able to produce an unimpeachable alibi.  Choices:  1. Inglethorp invented an excuse that was too good to be true. 2. The alibi was quickly cracked and disregarded, leaving Inglethorped forked. 3. Inglethorp was a shrewd man, with lying being one of his specialties.

A: 2
****
Q: Statement: Left to decide what part of the 1996 Act to strike as invalid, the court concluded that congressional intent regarding severability was unclear. Choices:  1. It was decided that the intent of severability was quite clear. 2. As a result, the court left the 1996 Act as it was originally written. 3. The court was able to decide which parts, if any, of the 1996 Act were invalid.

A: 1
****
Q: Statement: Edfu was built in the classic Egyptian style and was little changed following its rebuilding. Choices:  1. Edfu was built in the modern Egyptian style. 2. Edfu was constructed in the style of the classic Egyptian which was not largely changed after it was rebuilt. 3. Edfu had to be rebuilt due to vandalism and an earthquake.

A:
1
****