user: input with options: Lancôme Juicy Tubes changed my life. Ok, well that’s a slight exaggeration but it was the first high-end make-up item that I ever bought and it made me feel like I was really getting somewhere. I’d got a good job, was in the process of buying my own house and I could afford to buy premium beauty products. I chose a transparent lemon yellow gloss with tiny flecks of iridescent glitter in, and over the following months I treated myself to several other Juicy Tube variants including a shimmery nude gloss called Pamplemousse which I wore on nights out for years (incidentally Pamplemousse is still going!). Fast forward several (ahem…) years and Juicy Tubes are still going strong, but there’s a new member of the Juicy family vying for attention – the Juicy Shaker.*. Another lip product, this one is a nourishing tinted lip oil which acts a bit like a gloss, and I was sent two of the new shades to try out – Piece of Cake and Show Me The Honey. Juicy Shakers are a bi-phase nourishing lip oil, when the product is allowed to settle the pigment falls to the bottom and the oil rises to the top, giving a split effect. Then you need to shake the bottle to mix the two layers together, giving the product it’s name. The ingredients include sweet almond oil, omega 3 and cranberry oil and really help care for your lips unlike most other glosses. Show Me The Honey is a nude coral shade, it looks rather orange and scary in the bottle but in reality it’s much more of a gentle shade. Piece of Cake is a damson pink, and again looks much darker in the bottle. I found that Piece of Cake matches almost exactly with the natural colour of my lips so it’s perfect for when I want my make-up to look really pared back with glossy supple natural looking lips. According to the above context, answer the following question. How is she doing in life?
OPTIONS:
- really getting somewhere
- bought a house
- not enough information
- got a good job
output: really getting somewhere

input with options: The U.S. Supreme Court plunged into the politically messy issue of redrawing congressional and legislative districts Tuesday, in a case that could have profound implications for both major political parties for years to come. The high court heard oral arguments in a case brought by Democratic voters in Wisconsin. They argued that a Republican redistricting plan for the state assembly was so overtly partisan that it violated constitutional protections of freedom of speech and equal protection under the law for Wisconsin voters. A lower federal court sided with the challengers last year and against Republican state officials in Wisconsin. Officials argued Tuesday that they had not violated any constitutional rights when they drew up new boundaries for state assembly districts. "Our legislature followed traditional redistricting criteria, which is what they have been required to do and we think they followed that and that the justices will agree," Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel told reporters in front of the court following the oral arguments. The process of state legislatures redrawing congressional and legislative district boundaries has been enmeshed in politics for two centuries. Early on, the process was referred to as “gerrymandering,” where one party or the other tries to gain an electoral advantage by redrawing district boundaries to maximize their voting clout. Republicans have had success in several states in redrawing congressional and legislative voting districts and that has helped them maintain their majority in the House of Representatives. Democrats have come under fire as well for partisan maps in states where they control the legislature, like Maryland and Massachusetts. During Tuesday’s oral arguments, the more liberal high court justices seemed open to the case brought by Democratic voters. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said a ruling in favor of the Republican districting plan in Wisconsin would encourage others to stack the deck against their political opponents. “What becomes of the... According to the above context, answer the following question. What happened after the story?
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- The districts were fully redrawn
- The districts were not redrawn
- The districts were only partially redrawn
output: not enough information

input with options: Every so often I see a scenario play out that I find rather disappointing. It works like this: someone posts a topic to their blog that is critical or controversial. This person can either be a community member, commentator, employee or otherwise; it doesn’t matter who the person is. Then what happens is a series of comments are posted to that blog entry from readers that are critical of the post, thus challenging the author on their views. The author then either deletes the blog entry or disables the comments based on the feedback. In other words, a viewpoint is shared, an invitation for comment is provided, but that invitation is then revoked when the author of the blog post is dissatisfied with the response from their readers. I have seen this happen countless times over the years and I don’t like this. I believe we should all be accountable for our words. Our words have the ability to inspire, to entertain, to challenge, but to also hurt. Actions have consequences, and so do words. As such, when I see someone openly share their thoughts on their blog and invite their readers to provide comments, I see that as a wonderful demonstration of accountability and engagement; debate is a beautiful thing when executed with politeness and respect. To then close that door, seemingly because people disagree with you, is in my mind the equivalent of walking out of a room in the middle of a debate. The excuse when folks are criticized of this behavior is typically “it is my blog and I can run it how I like“. This is true: it is your blog, and you can run it how you like, but the true measure of a person is not just in what they say, but also in the conversation and discourse that follows. According to the above context, answer the following question. What type of blog post is the author referring to?
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- critical or controversial
- personal
- scientific
output: critical or controversial

input with options: As a mother, I’m right now navigating the hardest moment with my two daughters and my son … I was raped at 15 and molested by a teacher from 15–16 … it took 13 years of fighting before I saw any justice for those crimes and it paled in comparison to having to live with that trauma for the last 25 years. I thought I had moved past it for the most part, thanks to supportive family and lots of counseling and medication to treat my treatment resistant depression I’ve struggled over the last 25 years. I will be 40 this year. My son, the oldest, turned 15 this year … the same age I was when it began. I see how young he is and recognized for the first time just how young I had been when I was abused. That was really hard for me, emotionally. Now, I look at my two girls, ages 9 and 3, and worry for their safety - probably more than I should, but understandable given what I went through. We have had lots of “body safety” talks and my older daughter understands the very basics of what I went through, mainly because I have spent a great part of this past year writing a memoir about my experiences and have begun speaking publicly about what I went through and what it means to be a survivor. This is challenging because it’s hard to talk about and explain to a child in a way that they understand without making them fear the world. I struggle with this often. I’ve chosen to use it as an opportunity to teach them about activism and the power of speaking the truth, what it means to be a survivor instead of a victim. I hope they grow up and see just how strong their mother is and how she has worked in the community to raise awareness and help others. According to the above context, answer the following question. Who was raped?
OPTIONS:
- The mom
- The dad
- The son
- not enough information
output:

assistant: The mom