input: OPTIONS:
- She is Nalini's sister.
- not enough information
- She is Nalini's boss.
- She is a colleague. Now, answer this question: I was lucky enough to get three acne skincare packs from Aphelia Cosmetology for guest reviewers with acne to trial for me. I think that this is important because the treatment of acne is such a personalised journey that it is good to hear about the results of the skincare from a variety of people. In the third review of this series, Nalini from The Made Up Maiden has reviewed this acne set for me. Nalini is 30 and has troublesome skin. She has tried many products to fix it without a lot of luck. Here is Nalini's review: I've always thought the journey to clear skin can be quite a complicated one. There are just so many things that affect the condition of your skin; genetics, skincare, diet, hormones, weather, stress...the list is endless. In my case, both parents had acne when they were younger, and I had hopes that my acne would fade once I left my teens. My skin isn't completely horrendous, but I do have some minimal scarring on my cheeks (which goes away after a little while), and the odd large pimple on my chin during those hormonal times, which goes away after a while but is still really frustrating when it happens! I'm 30 years old, so it looks like these problems are here to stay. I have contemplated taking hormonal pills or medication aimed at reducing acne, but decided that the possible side effects haven't really been worth the benefit. As a result, I was really keen to explore the Aphelia Cosmetology range and see if it lives up to the promise of helping with acne troubled skin. I would classify my skin as combination, the t-zone gets a little oily towards midday, while the rest of my skin is pretty much classified as 'normal'. I received the following items. Question: How is the reviewer related to Nalini? === The answer to the above question is
A:
output: not enough information

Light dappled through the trees in the family courtyard, painting shadows on the paving stones. Li Reiko knelt by her son to look at his scraped knee. "I just scratched it." Nawi squirmed under her hands. Her daughter, Aya, leaned over her shoulder studying the healing. "Maybe Mama will show you her armor after she heals you." Nawi stopped wiggling. "Really?" Reiko shot Aya a warning look, but her little boy's dark eyes shone with excitement. Reiko smiled. "Really." What did tradition matter? "Now let me heal your knee." She laid her hand on the shallow wound. "Ow." "Shush." Reiko closed her eyes and rose in the dark space within her mind. In her mind's eye, Reiko took her time with the ritual, knowing it took less time than it appeared. In a heartbeat, green fire flared out to the walls of her mind. She dissolved into it as she focused on healing her son. When the wound closed beneath her hand, she sank to the surface of her mind. "There." She tousled Nawi's hair. "That wasn't bad, was it?" "It tickled." He wrinkled his nose. "Will you show me your armor now?" She sighed. She should not encourage his interest in the martial arts. His work would be with the histories that men kept, and yet... "Watch." Pulling the smooth black surface out of the ether, she manifested her armor. It sheathed her like silence in the night. Aya watched with obvious anticipation for the day when she earned her own armor. Nawi's face, full of sharp yearning for something he would never have, cut Reiko's heart like a new blade. "Can I see your sword?" She let her armor vanish back into thought. "No." Reiko brushed his hair from his eyes. "It's my turn to hide, right?" Question: Why did Reiko showed Nawi her armor? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- because Nawi is supposed to learn about it
- not enough information
- because he was excited and curious about it
- because she does that all the time

Answer: because he was excited and curious about it

WHITE HOUSE President Donald Trump on Monday declared he has an "absolute right" to pardon himself and then also tweeted his assertion that the federal government investigation into ties between his 2016 election campaign and Russia is "totally unconstitutional." While Trump has frequently ignored established norms and challenged the understood limits of presidential powers, his latest comments are viewed by some legal scholars as unprecedented and testing constitutional boundaries. "I was shocked" by Trump's tweets, said Susan Low Bloch, a law professor at Georgetown University. "No president has ever tried it," she told VOA News. "It's unlikely the president can pardon himself. I think the court would say no" and if he did give himself a pardon, "most congresses would impeach him." Bloch also notes when most people accept a pardon "it's an admission of guilt," thus it would be a bad idea for Trump to pursue such a course of action. The professor, who has testified before the Senate on whether a president can be indicted and tried while in office, says the special counsel is "absolutely constitutional." Another constitutional scholar, Keith Whittington at Princeton University, said, "I think it is important to note that the president's comments reference serious arguments that are being debated by legal scholars, but these are difficult and unusual constitutional questions that would ultimately be answered in the courts." According to Northwestern University Law Professor Andrew Koppelman, "Trump's position on pardons is consistent with the Constitution's text, but inconsistent with the overall structure. It means that the President could commit capital treason, or any other federal crime, and then immediately pardon himself. "It means that he could commit murder in the White House," Koppelman said. "It makes no sense within the Constitution as a whole." Asked by reporters Monday about Trump's comment on his ability to pardon himself, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders repeatedly replied: "The... Question: What did Trump accomplish with his statement that he could pardon himself? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- He proved his innocence
- He showed his knowledge of the Constitution
- He proved his naysayers wrong

Answer:
not enough information