In this task, you're given an article and an answer. Your task is to generate the fill-in-the-blank question for this answer based on the given article. The blanks are always at the end of the question, and can be filled with more than one word or phrase.
--------
Question: Article: A four-year-old girl sees three biscuits divided between a stuffed crocodile and a teddy bear.The crocodile gets two; the bear one."Is that fair?" asks the experimenter.The girl judges that it is not."How about now?" asks the experimenter, breaking the bear's single biscuit in half.The girl cheers up: "Oh yes, now it's fair.They both have two." Strangely, children feel very strongly about fairness, even when they hardly understand it. Adults care about fairness too --- but how much? One way to find out is by using the ultimatum game, created by economist Werner Guth.Jack is given a pile of money and proposes how it should be divided with Jill.Jill can accept Jack's "ultimatum", otherwise the deal is off, and neither gets anything. Suppose Jack and Jill don't care about fairness, just about accumulating cash.Then Jack can offer Jill as little as he likes and Jill will still accept.After all, a little money is more than no money.But imagine, instead, that Jack and Jill both care only about fairness and that the fairest outcome is equality.Then Jack would offer Jill half the money; and Jill wouldn't accept otherwise. What happens when we ask people to play this game for real? It turns out that people value fairness a lot.Anyone offered less than 20-30% of the money is likely to reject it.Receiving an unfair offers makes us feel sick.Happily, most offers are pretty equitable; indeed, by far the most common is a 50-50 split. But children, and adults, also care about a very different sort of (un)fairness, namely cheating.Think how many games of snakes and ladders have ended in arguments when one child "accidentally" miscounts her moves and another child objects.But this sense of fairness isn't about equality of outcome: games inevitably have winners and losers.Here, fairness is about playing by the rules. Both fairness-as-equality and fairness-as-no-cheating matter.Which is more important: equality or no-cheating? I think the answer is neither.The national lottery , like other lotteries, certainly doesn't make the world more equal: a few people get rich and most people get nothing.Nevertheless, we hope, it is fair --- but what does this mean? The fairness-as-no-cheating viewpoint has a ready answer: a lottery is fair if it is conducted according to the "rules".But which rules? None of us has the slightest idea, I suspect.Suppose that buried in the small print at lottery HQ is a rule that forbids people with a particular surname (let's say, Moriarty).So a Ms Moriarty could buy a ticket each week for years without any chance of success. How would she react if she found out? Surely with anger: how dare the organisers let her play, week after week, without mentioning that she couldn't possibly win! She'd reasonably feel unfairly treated because _ . To protest against unfairness, then, is to make an accusation of bad faith.From this viewpoint, an equal split between the crocodile and the bear seems fair because (normally, at least), it is the only split they would both agree to.But were the girl to learn that the crocodile doesn't like biscuits or that the bear isn't hungry, I suspect she'd think it perfectly fair for one toy to take the whole.Inequality of biscuits (or anything else) isn't necessarily unfair, if both parties are happy.And the unfairness of cheating comes from the same source: we'd never accept that someone else can unilaterally violate agreements that we have all signed up to. So perhaps the four-year-old's intuitions about fairness is the beginnings of an understanding of negotiation.With a sense of fairness, people will have to make us acceptable offers (or we'll reject their ultimatums) and stick by the (reasonable) rules, or we'll be on the warpath.So a sense of fairness is crucial to effective negotiation; and negotiation, over toys, treats etc, is part of life.
Answer: Jill has no choice but to accept any amount of money

Answer: It can be inferred that in the ultimatum game, _ .

Question: Article: It's believed that a bad job is worse than no job at all. I'm not convinced, but here's the argument anyway. Researchers at the Australian National University in Canberra compared the mental health of more than 7,000 working age Australians. They found that those with jobs had an average score of 75 in a test of mental well-being. Jobless people averaged 68.5. If you remained unemployed a long term it lowered your mental health score by 1.1 points. But getting a poor quality job lowered your score ever further - by 5.6 points. The results suggest that having a bad job may be worse for your mental health than having no job at all. So what is a bad job? According to the study it's one where you have little control over decision-making; the job makes heavy demands on you; there's no job security; and you feel underpaid. My advice would be that if a reasonable offer of employment comes along, seize it. If you discover that you don't like the work, that's OK. You've given it your best shot and discovered that this type of work isn't for you. In my own case my first job was as a trainee social worker. I very quickly learned that I was too young, too inexperienced and innocent to become a social worker. I cut my losses and tried something else. I worked as an economic researcher - and was miserable. These experiences taught me that I was a person. But from my short time as a trainee social worker I had discovered an ability for interviewing people and writing reports. That led finally to journalism. So take up that first job offer and find out about the world of work. If you realize the job isn't what you expected, that's OK. Look around for something else. So I disagree that a bad job is worse than no work at all. Remember, it's always easier to find a job if you are already in work.
Answer: if a bad job offer comes to you, give it up immediately

Answer: From the writer's experience, we could learn that _ .

Question: Article: There once was a king who offered a prize to the artist who would paint the best picture of peace. Many artists tried. The king looked at all the pictures, but there were only two he really liked and he had to choose between them. One picture was of a calm lake. The lake was a perfect mirror, for peaceful towering mountains were all around it. Over head was a blue sky with white clouds. All who saw this picture thought it was a perfect picture of peace. The other picture has mountains too. But these were rough and bare. Above was an angry sky from which rain fell and in which lightening played. Down the side of mountain ran a waterfall. This did not look peaceful at all. But when the king looked, he saw behind the waterfall a tiny bush growing in a _ in the rock. In the bush a mother bird had built her nest. There, in the midst of the rush of angry water, sat the mother bird on her nest... perfect peace. Which picture do you think won prize? The king chose the second picture. Do you know why? " Because ," explained the king, " peace does not mean to be in a place where there is no noise, trouble, or hard work. Peace means to be in the midst of all those things and still be calm in your heart. That is the real meaning of peace.
Answer: silence

Answer:
The first picture gives us a feeling of _ .