input: OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Professor Brian Lloyd
- Professor Brian Boyd
- Professor Brian Smith Now, answer this question: "Teachers like to agree with each other, when we talk about learning. It's hard to change that, when the model we have wanted to make work has nonetheless been failing for 40 years." Professor Brian Boyd No area has remained up there in the contentiousness charts in Scotland as the notion of business and education working together to do something better for our young people. Most schools do not 'partner' with colleges or universities. Instead, they are production facilities for undergraduates and college entrants. Fewer are set up to systematically provide apprenticeship opportunities as well as learning. At NoTosh, we've been working on a few, nascent projects to change the attitudes of schools from being these production facilities into something more of a life support - what metrics of success might we use if schools judged their success on the results of their alumni, five, ten or twenty years down the line, much like universities do? City of Glasgow College have partnered with Newlands Junior College (NJC) to make the experience of a day in college more than what, in other circumstances, is too often perceived as a day off from school. The Junior College is called this, and not a school, for that very reason, to mark it out as a stepping stone between school and full-blown college. NoTosh helped last August to provoke the team around their thoughts of what 'unschool' might look like. The College was backed and founded by Jim McColl, one of Scotland's top business people. In the future, suggests, McColl, might be be possible to take funding of learning out of its pre-existing silos, particularly for this group of students, about 60 in every city at these ages, who just need a different approach to the traditional comprehensive approach? A crossover funding model that helps learning happen in both 'school' or Junior College and college or university might be interesting. In fact, some of the world's top universities are thinking of such models for their own students: Stanford's 2025 project talks about the... Question: Who feels the education system has been failing the past 40 years according to the article? === The answer to the above question is
A:
output: Professor Brian Boyd

input: OPTIONS:
- They probably eat a lot of fruit.
- not enough information
- They probably have oxidative stress.
- They probably have diabetes. Now, answer this question: What do apples, pears and oranges all have in common? If you answered that they are all fruits you are absolutely correct. If you answered that they are all good for your health you are spot on again. Fruits used to be a staple in many diets, however in amongst all of the low carb and anti sugar chaos, many people are now avoiding them. In a rush to rid the diet of 'toxic sugar', fruit has fallen on the wayside. However, many studies have shown that fruit is not linked to any adverse health effects, quite the opposite in fact. Most recently researchers in Sweden discovered that eating a diet high in fruits could reduce the risk of an often lethal form of aortic aneurysm. The study collected data from over 80,000 people over a 13 year period and found that people eating at least two whole fruits per day, reduced the risk of developing an abdominal aortic aneurysm by almost a third. The main fruits that were eaten were apples, pears, bananas, oranges and other citrus fruits. The fruits' high antioxidant levels may offer protection by reducing oxidative stress and inflammation. Eating whole fruits can also reduced the risk of developing diabetes. Earlier this year a study published in the British Medical Journal revealed that certain whole fruits in particular blueberries, grapes, apples and pears could lower the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. The study found that over an 18-year period, 6.5% of the 187,382 participants developed diabetes, but those consuming at least two serves of fruit per week reduced their risk by up to 23%. In the same study those who consumed two or more serves of fruit juice per day increased their risk of developing diabetes by as much as 21%. As Tim wrote in a previous blog post, this is reason why you should be eating your fruit, not drinking it Question: What is probably true about the researchers? === The answer to the above question is
A:
output: They probably eat a lot of fruit.

input: OPTIONS:
- Still looking for a double edged sword
- Still reading the 232 report
- not enough information
- Still considering imposing tariffs Now, answer this question: U.S. President Donald Trump says he is considering tariffs, quotas, and retaliatory taxes on imports of steel and aluminum from countries such as China, Japan, and South Korea. The comments came during a wide-ranging trade discussion Tuesday between Trump and a bipartisan group of lawmakers at the White House. The president said U.S. steel and aluminum industries are being "decimated" by the "dumping" of cheap imports of those materials into U.S. markets. Trump has long threatened what he calls "reciprocal" trade action to deal with steel, aluminum, and other imports. But he has so far avoided taking any major steps, ostensibly out of fear of hurting the country's strong economic performance since he took office. Several lawmakers on Tuesday urged Trump to be cautious when considering retaliatory trade steps, saying such measures could spark a trade war that leads to higher prices for U.S. producers and consumers. "It's very, very much a double-edged sword," Trump conceded. "I want to keep prices down, but I also want to make sure that we have a steel industry and an aluminum industry," he added. The Trump administration is currently renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), as well as the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement with South Korea. Trump called the U.S.-South Korea deal "very, very bad" and "horrible." He also said Canada has "treated us very, very unfairly." Last month, the U.S. Commerce Department sent a so-called "232 report" to the White House, examining the national security impacts of steel and aluminum imports, and giving Trump 90 days to impose quotas or tariffs. Under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, the president can initiate a probe to determine if imports threaten national security. "It's about our economy," Vice President Mike Pence during the meeting. "It's about our national security." Trade was a major topic for Trump during the presidential campaign he vowed to impose a 45 percent tax on Chinese imports and a 35 percent tax on Mexican imports. Question: After the trade discussion Trump is most likely doing what? === The answer to the above question is
A:
output:
Still considering imposing tariffs