input with options: I'm going to take something that happened to my daughter for this answer. Billie Jo (our daughter) was probably around ten years old when it happened. We had a young Black Labrador dog who had become quite smitten with chewing things up that she wasn't supposed to. The list grew longer as the months passed. Looker, our black lab, had chewed up and eaten a $10 bill, my VCR remote control (probably around 1987), and a sticker-filled blackberry vine my wife had planted. How she did that one without serious repercussions is beyond me. She also had a habit of grabbing the mail as it slid through the slot that was in our front door, taking it out back and 'sorting' it for us. So what happened really came as no big surprise. My daughter was a very diligent student, never wanting to let down her teachers by not turning her homework in as soon as she got to school (at least until she hit 14). One morning our daughter was trying to find the math homework that she knew she had completed the night before. My wife assisted in the search and soon found a partially chewed up piece of our daughter's homework page. Our daughter was devastated! How could she possibly walk in to school and publicly announce, "My dog ate my homework!" without becoming the laughing stock of the school? Like this: Mama Bear (my wife) storms into the classroom and vehemently upholds our daughter's "dog ate my homework" bit, showing the teacher the half eaten paper. Funny thing was, the teacher would have never doubted our little girl for one minute. Back then, Billie Jo was the sweetest, cutest, most polite and well mannered child a parent could possibly hope for. And her teachers loved her. So, if you have partial proof, it can be a valid excuse. According to the above context, answer the following question. What is the dogs name?
OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Spot
- Anthony
- Blue
output: not enough information

input with options: Like many other inventors before him, professor Slawomir Suwak designed only the things he needed himself. He had several patents on his conscience already: an automatic cork opener for wine in the indicative state, a portable set of board games for solving personality problems, a wallet with a mini-device for the duplications of 100 zloty bills, and a piece of equipment "the day after" used to irretrievably eliminate from the time-space continuum days burdened with a hangover. Now came the time for a mini-device preventing the development of symptoms of psycho-motor aggression. The device was really simple. It weighed about a kilo and was the size of a bag of flour. It was to be worn on the right wrist. The fact it had to be the right wrist was very important. Otherwise, the invention didn't work properly, or even worse, it produced results opposite to its intended effect. Each day, its mini-containers had to be re-filled with substances promoting positive processes in the body leading to the return of good mood. There were three containers to re-fill, and the substances were not available on the local market and had to be imported using diplomatic channels from the USA. To operate the device, turning it on stand-by was enough. In that mode, it could be used continuously for one and a half hours. To recharge the batteries, you needed a charger, which was stored in a small suitcase. The device, when it was turned on, made a low murmur (or according to some - a loud growl) designed to keep the owner in a good mood. Professor Suwak called his new baby "mini-anti-aggressor." The McPhilips corporation expressed its interest in the product early on, even when it was still at the drawing-board stage. The company partially financed the purchase of sub-assembly elements from its subsidiary specializing in the productions of components for technologically advanced products. According to the above context, answer the following question. What was the device filled with?
OPTIONS:
- stuff that promotes good mood
- batteries
- flour
- not enough information
output: stuff that promotes good mood

input with options: WASHINGTON U.S. President Barack Obama has shortened the sentences of 214 inmates of U.S. federal prisons, in what the White House called the largest batch of commutations on a single day in more than a century. The early release is part of Obama's effort to correct what he views as unreasonably long mandatory minimum sentences. The president's push to lessen the burden on nonviolent drug offenders reflects his long-stated view that the nation should remedy the consequences of decades of onerous sentencing rules, which have put tens of thousands of Americans behind bars for far too long. Among those affected by Wednesday's presidential order were 67 individuals serving life sentences - almost all for nonviolent drug crimes, although a few also were charged with firearms violations related to their drug activities. To date, Obama has granted 562 commutations, more than the previous nine presidents combined, and more clemency actions that by any other president in nearly a century. White House counsel Neil Eggleston said in the White House blog that Obama examines each clemency application on its specific merits to identify the appropriate relief, including whether the prisoner would be helped by additional drug treatment, educational programs or counseling. Presidents tend to use their powers to commute sentences or issue pardons more frequently near the end of their terms of office. Administration officials said the rapid pace will continue before Obama's leaves the White House in January 2017. "We are not done yet," Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates said. "We expect that many more men and women will be given a second chance through the clemency initiative." Obama has long called for phasing out strict sentences for drug offenses, arguing they lead to excessive punishment and incarceration rates unseen in other developed countries. With presidential support, the Justice Department in recent years has directed prosecutors to rein in the use of harsh mandatory minimums. Eggleston once again called on... According to the above context, answer the following question. How do the inmates probably feel about the commutations?
OPTIONS:
- they are sad about it
- not enough information
- they are happy about it
- they are angry about it
output:
they are happy about it