input with options: 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: Where did the judge first meet the fingerprint examiner? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- burglary case
- murder case
- litigation case
- not enough information
output: not enough information

Q: 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: At the end of this story the narrator probably === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Eats less fruits
- Eats more fruits
- Eliminates fruit from their diet altogether

A: Eats more fruits

For a month, anything I consumed would result in me rushing to the wash room and throwing up. When this started, I thought it's something to do with what I had previously eaten which was stale and was having a reaction to bad food. When the problem persisted for a week where I was barely able to keep my food from coming out, I went to visit my doctor. He asked me questions and gave me some vitamins and pills before and after food to stop the vomiting. They didn't work. Even though I was not sexually active, I got my self a pregnancy test which showed negitive. I tried to eat healthy, but to no avail. 15 mins was the max my food was inside my stomach. I was becoming weak from all the throwing up and rapidly loosing weight. I went to my doctor again and he said I was stressed. Wrote me some more pills. Nothing worked. My Mom got paranoid and took me to another doctor for a second opinion. The doctor asked me to write down everything I ate with the number of times I threw up for the next 2 days and return to his clinic. Only then, were they able to diagnose that I was lactose intolerant!! Milk, milk products, cheese, butter, cream, nothing seems to agree with my stomach anymore. Surprisingly this is what I used to eat - cereals with milk, eggs with butter, pizza, pasta, lasagne, cheese with bread, tall long glasses of iced coffee, frappes and bam, my body would reject them within 15 minutes. It was terrible switching from coffee with milk to black coffee, until I started developing a taste for it. Pizza's are something I still can't eat. I need to remove the cheese from the slice and unfortunately my body is able to only take one slice of Pizza. Pasta, white sauce is a strict no no unless I want to feel bloated and throw up. So yep. My doctor was unable to diagnose me. Thankfully I did take a second opinion. Question: The narrator knew about their lactose intolerance === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- after seeing a second doctor
- after seeing the first doctor
- before seeing the first doctor
- not enough information

Answer:
after seeing a second doctor