Read the following context and answer the question. Context: I am currently waiting for peer reviews of two books I've worked on: one sole-authored, one co-authored. We don't talk much about the experience of waiting for reviews, and it's not something that appears to have been researched. Yet it's something everyone doing academic work has to go through and it may be bad for our mental health. I'm finding it particularly difficult at the moment because a lot rides on these reviews. The sole-authored book, which is on a contentious topic, has already had one set of reviews. Reviewer 1 was utterly damning, saying "I couldn't find anything to praise". Luckily, Reviewers 2 and 3 were more measured, offering both praise and constructive criticism, and their input helped me to revise and strengthen the typescript. However, in the process, my editor and I realised that we needed further reviews from people with a particular kind of specialist knowledge. My editor approached around ten potential reviewers, but only one agreed to do the job. So I'm gibbering what if that person agrees with Reviewer 1? The co-authored book is in a contentious format. My co-authors and I decided that I would be the person to liaise with publishers, as I have form in this process. The last time I liaised with academic publishers for a co-authored book was in the early 2000s, and I'd forgotten how heavily responsible it makes me feel. Fortunately, I've found a publisher that is interested and has sent the book out for reviews, to two professional academics and two students. This is great and terrifying but at least there are four reviewers. Even so, what if they all think it's rubbish? In many ways I love the peer review system. I welcome feedback on my writing, and I'm not at all averse to constructive criticism. I am by no means arrogant enough to think I can write a good book without input from others. Yet peer review, as a process, is fraught with uncertainty. Comments may not be constructive, or may not come at all. They may be positive, or negative, or in between, or a mixture. Question: Who did the narrator write a book with Answer:

OPTIONS:
- A reviewer
- A Co-Author
- An editor
- not enough information

Answer: A Co-Author

Problem: OPTIONS:
- His name was read as a selected juror.
- He had five cups of coffee.
- not enough information
- He heard the woman read Troy Blockerman's name.
Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Greg stopped by the courthouse concession stand for a cup of coffee, even though he had already downed four cups at Jane's Diner across the street. The old man behind the counter reached for Greg's dollar with a noticeably shaky hand that looked as though it had held more cigarettes and booze than money in its lifetime. He took his coffee and walked up the stairs to the second floor. There were about fifty people standing in the hallway outside the courtroom making small talk. He recognized a few of them, but was in no mood to start a conversation. Only four more jurors and two alternates were needed. With a little luck, he would soon be sent on his way. The coffee tasted bitter, but he continued to sip on it anyway, just to occupy himself. After a few minutes, a woman walked out of the courtroom and spoke to the crowd in monotone. "Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are ready to get started. We did not get enough jurors yesterday for the criminal trial, so we are going to use part of today's panel for that purpose. Those who are not selected for the criminal trial today must appear tomorrow at 8:00 AM for the civil trial jury selection. "First, I will call the names of the jurors that have already been selected. When I call your name, please go into the courtroom and take your seat in the pews where you sat yesterday. Please sit in the order in which your names are called." "Alexander Littleton Gail Silestone " The crowd carefully analyzed each person as he walked through the group and into the courtroom. "Mary McJohnson William Biscayne Judy McPhearson John Nihmbor Nancy Novelle and Troy Blockerman." Greg nearly choked on his coffee. Troy Blockerman! That's Cynthia's husband. His blood pressure shot up like a bottle rocket, exploding into a headache. "And now I will call the names of a portion of today's panel. Those whose names are not called will need to stay here in the courthouse since we might still need you today. I will let you know when you can go home. Again, please sit in the order in... Question: Why did Greg's blood pressure shoot up? Answer:
Answer: He heard the woman read Troy Blockerman's name.

input with options: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: QUEBEC CITY Emotions were on display when U.S. President Donald Trump met other G-7 leaders at their annual summit in Canada on Friday, but the discussions were civilized and diplomatic, according to sources. Trump held firm on asserting the United States is disadvantaged when it comes to trade with its European allies. "The other leaders presented their numbers and Trump presented his," a G-7 official who spoke on condition of anonymity told the Reuters news agency. "As expected he did not budge. This is probably not because he does not understand, but because of domestic reasons." At a bilateral meeting later with the summit's host, Justin Trudeau, the U.S. president joked that the Canadian prime minister had agreed to "cut all tariffs." Despite the two leaders exchanging criticism of each other's trade policies the previous day, Trump described the cross-border relationship as very good, stating "we're actually working on cutting tariffs and making it all very fair for both countries. And we've made a lot of progress today. We'll see how it all works out." In a subsequent sit-down meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron, Trump said "the United States has had a very big trade deficit for many years with the European Union and we are working it out. And Emmanuel's been very helpful in that regard." Macron responded that he had a "very direct and open discussion" with Trump and "there is a critical path that is a way to progress all together." Canada's foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, confirms she met on Friday with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to discuss the tariffs and the fate of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). She said Canada, however, will not change its mind about the U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs which she termed "illegal." Trump imposed the tariffs on the grounds that weak domestic industries could affect U.S. national security. America's closest allies, Canada, Mexico and the European Union, are introducing retaliatory tariffs. Question: After the end of the story, how does Macron feel about the US Answer:
OPTIONS:
- that he cannot work with the US
- that he can work with the US in some instances
- not enough information
- the us is a good ally and he can work with us
output:
the us is a good ally and he can work with us