When she's in the mood to push my buttons, my significant other, the delightful and charming Ms. D, frequently alludes to the questionable timeline concerning my birth date. She derives much mirth from the fact that I was born something less than nine or ten months after my parents wed and hints that this indicates a certain amount of premarital hanky-panky. Standing on my dignity ('cause it's higher than the coffee table), my reply is that I have it on good authority that I owe my early entry into the world to Tabusintac Hill. Said hill was once considered to be an abomination of the first water. The Tabusintac, like all hills, had an up and a down. In this case, the up and down were distinguished from each other by a sharp curve at the bottom. The main North/South New Brunswick highway slavishly followed the hill's contours. If you were heading north, the road led you into a ravine and you were faced with a steep uphill incline that, in winter presented a challenge to at least half the vehicles trying to climb it. In true snow country fashion, steep, icy hills were conquered by getting a running start, building up a lot of speed and praying that Mr. Newton's rules concerning inertia would work in your favour. Headed south, the problem became keeping your car under control so that you didn't go shooting into the trees when the road curved to the left. My parents were taking a trip to the Miramachi in December of '56 and were driving a Pontiac borrowed from one of my father's friends. My mother was pregnant with a bundle of bad attitude and misery that would turn out to be me. I assume that my father was driving with that mix of panache and insouciance that my mother tended to describe as reckless behaviour. In any case, as he rounded the corner at the top of the hill, the road was apparently free of snow and ice and there was no reason to slowdown. Until the moose stepped out onto the road just ahead of them. Question: what is probably true of the author when Ms. D pushes his buttons === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- he likes what she says
- he's ashamed of what she says
- he hates what she says

Answer: he's ashamed of what she says

Problem: OPTIONS:
- Before boarding their flight
- When they got home
- After leaving the airport
- not enough information
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: When did the narrator notice the sporf? === The answer to the above question is
Answer: Before boarding their flight

input with options: 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: What is Sophie Richardson in charge of at the Human Rights Campaign? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- China
- United States
- North Korea
- not enough information
output:
China