Q: I picked up this Sporf in Amsterdam Schipol airport. A spork I'd seen before, but the addition of a simple serration on the side of the fork end makes this a genuine "three-in-one" implement for eating one's full three-course takeaway meal on the plane. The sporf is no innovation; back in 1940 the "sporf" was born. It took me until 2015 to notice this one thanks to its rather pleasant design. The sporf is a little like most strategy documents that I come across. It is one implement designed to serve a multitude of goals, but with one fatal flaw: you can only ever use one part of the sporf / strategy at any one time. With the sporf, things would get messy trying to use the spoon and knife and the same time. The knife and fork work quite well in sequence but physics prevents me using both at the same time as I can with the older technologies of knife and fork. In strategy formation, we can develop a multitude of potential purposes within one document, killer vision statement or mission. But it's important to recognise that the teams around us will only ever be able to do one thing really well at any one time. This is a lesson oft ignored by schools, in particular, as they attempt to ask educators to create an ever-more creative curriculum without having first tackled attitudes towards summative assessments throughout the year. It is also a challenge in some of the world's most successful, but now stagnating, big businesses: they've spent decades or centuries building a reputation across a large array of devices, technologies, components or clothing, but the real strategy is working out which of the current array needs killed off to enable teams in their quest to develop something totally new, properly innovative. Question: What is probably true about the author? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- he hates sporfs
- he never uses sporfs
- not enough information
- he likes sporfs

A: he likes sporfs

input: OPTIONS:
- To help the US with North Korea
- To give definite limits on Xi's power
- not enough information
- To consolidate power for Xi. Now, answer this question: The White House says China's proposal to abolish presidential term limits a move that could make Xi Jinping president for life is an internal matter for Beijing. "I believe that's a decision for China to make about what's best for their country," press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said at a Monday press briefing. Term limits, Sanders said, are something Trump "supports here in the United States, but that's a decision that would be up to China." The Chinese Communist Party proposed removing the presidential two-term limit from China's constitution, state media reported Sunday. The move would be a further consolidation of power for Xi, who is already seen as one of China's most powerful leaders in decades. On Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump praised Xi, saying he has a "very good relationship" and "great respect" for the Chinese leader. "I think that President Xi is unique. He's helping us with North Korea," Trump said during a White House meeting with U.S. governors. Trump has not specifically addressed the issue of China removing term limits. To some, Sanders' comments are the latest evidence of a break in the long-standing U.S. tradition of encouraging democracy in China, and reflect an unwillingness to criticize undemocratic regimes. "In effect, she is saying that the U.S. is OK with Xi Jinping simply asserting that he will remain in power indefinitely," said Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch. "Does she realize China isn't a democracy?" During the presidential campaign, Trump regularly slammed China and its trade policies. But since becoming president, Trump has toned down the criticism. Instead, Trump has prioritized working with China to address North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. However, several reports suggest the White House could soon announce trade decisions, such as tariffs on Chinese imports, that could strain the U.S.-China relationship. Question: Why did China remove its term limit policy? === The answer to the above question is
A:
output: To consolidate power for Xi.

Problem:OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- sympathetic to the fingerprint examiner
- competitive with the fingerprint examiner
- shrewd with the fingerprint examiner

I was one of the best fingerprint examiners in the world. I could do things the FBI thought impossible. I could memorize fingerprints. The nearby agencies, including local offices of federal agencies that had their own labs, came to me for help. One day in a trial a new-hatched defence attorney tried to make me seem neglectful because I hadn't sent the prints from the crime scene to the FBI for verification. The FBI will not look at prints that have already been identified locally. I tried to get that across to him. Finally I said, "Sir, you don't understand. I don't ask the FBI for help. The FBI asks me for help." The courtroom went dead silent. The lawyer choked a bit and looked frantically at the judge, who knew me quite well. The judge slowly nodded. The lawyer choked a few more times, said, "No further questions," and returned to his seat. I was the only person in the five-state area in which the silver burglar was hitting who got him on fingerprint evidence. He never left fingerprint evidence . . . except when he did. Every other police agency quit looking, because his MO was unmistakable. We didn't. A detective got prints from a bamboo tree he had used to climb in a window, and I got several prints from items he had handled inside the house. After the trial he was being led back to the jail and I was walking down the hall. He stopped and said, "I want to talk to that lady." The bailiff told him he couldn't talk to the witness, but I said I wanted to hear what he had to say. He said, "Lady, you're the smartest cop I ever saw, and I hope to God I never see you again." I think that was the best compliment I ever got. I have other accomplishments. But I consider my police work the most important. Question: The judge is most likely: === The answer to the above question is
****
A:
sympathetic to the fingerprint examiner