In this task, you're given an article and an answer. Your task is to generate the question for the answer based on the given article.
--------
Question: Article: When policy experts debate climate change solutions, they often talk about "a price on carbon." They are arguing about whether companies should pay when they put carbon pollution in the air. Proponents say that it's simple economics -- if it's free to pollute, you'll get a lot of pollution. Opponents claim it will raise the cost of energy that's produced from high carbon sources, like coal. But here's the secret that most people seem to be missing: There already is a price on carbon, and it's paid by the taxpayers. Carbon pollution, like every other form of pollution, has an impact on the environment. Throwing waste into a river will cause the fish to die and the people who drink the water to get sick. And when you produce carbon pollution, you get climate change -- sea level rise, stronger storms, severe droughts, damage to agriculture, and more. All of those impacts cost money. Insurance rates go up when storms get more destructive. Taxes increase when cities have to rebuild bridges and roads. Military budgets go up when droughts and population changes cause conflicts. Not to mention impacts on agriculture and health care costs. In other words, the price on carbon is what we all pay when there is no market force to limit the pollution that causes climate change. So the debate is really about who will pay that price -- the companies who are making a profit from the fossil fuels, or the taxpayers who pick up the cost now? Right now, we have private profit and public cost. It's just like if we allowed every business to throw its garbage in the street because it's too expensive to have it moved away properly. Does it add a little bit to your dinner check to require that restaurants dispose of their trash properly? Sure. But it would be more expensive for you if the city had to clean the streets of their garbage every day. So just like we put a "price on garbage" we need a "price on carbon pollution." Now, a "price on carbon pollution" can mean a lot of things. You could tax companies based on the amount of carbon pollution they produce, and return the money to taxpayers. You could put a limit on how much they can produce, thereby requiring them to invest in ways to conduct business in a less polluting way.
Answer: Whether the companies should pay for it.

Answer: What do the policy experts argue about carbon pollution?

Question: Article: What's the most expensive place to station an employee overseas? London? Tokyo? Sao Paulo? Try Luanda, Angola. That's the finding of a survey by Mercer, the world's largest human resources consulting firm, headquartered in New York City. Two African cities (Luanda, N'Djamena) were in the top 10, along with four (Moscow, Geneva, Zurich, Bern) in Europe, three (Tokyo, Singapore, Hong Kong) in Asia and one (Sydney) in Australia. Switzerland alone has three cities in the top 10. Mercer's 2013 Cost of Living Survey examined data from 214 cities worldwide, comparing a market basket of over 200 goods and services, including unfurnished luxury two-bedroom apartments or three-bedroom houses, movie tickets, blue jeans, international newspapers, coffee, fast food restaurant meals, gasoline, milk and soda. If it sounds odd that Angola would be the most expensive, Mercer's Barb Marder explains that"Despite being one of Africa's major oil producers, Angola is a ly poor country yet expensive for expatriates since imported goods can be dear. In addition, finding secure living accommodations that meet the standards of expatriates can be challenging and quite costly."The survey found similar supply issues in N'Djamena, Chad, the other top 10 city in Africa. Mercer measured locations worldwide against New York, on a U.S. dollar basis, meaning that exchange rate shifts could impact the rankings. For example, although Tokyo is Asia's most expensive city for people who live in a foreign country, the weakening of the Japanese yen against the dollar makes it seem cheaper than it was a year ago. Canada, too, has become a bargain as the U.S. dollar strengthens against the Canadian dollar. Measurements were taken in March, 2013. What's the trend in the United States?"Overall, U.S. cities either remain stable in the ranking or have slightly decreased due to the movement of the U.S. dollar against the majority of currencies worldwide,"explains Mercer's Steven Nurney. However, that may change as real estate prices rise nationwide. New York is the nation's most expensive place to station expatriates. While housing is generally the most important factor in the survey rankings, the survey revealed some other significant differences in prices. For example, you may need a vodka chaser after paying $ 8.29 for a cup of coffee in Moscow, but the same coffee in Managua, Nicaragua would cost only $ 1.54. Expect to pay $ 20.10 for a movie ticket in London, versus $ 5.91 in Johannesburg.
Answer: New York.

Answer: Which of the following cities may be the cheapest for employees overseas?

Question: Article: Most laws in the United States and Canada are similar to laws in other countries. For example, it is against the law everywhere to murder a person, and it is illegal to steal money. Everyone knows these laws, but foreign students or tourists in a new country may not know some of the local laws. For instance, a legal action in Peru may be against the law in Korea, and an illegal activity in an Asian city may be perfectly legal in a European city. On the other hand, laws may be the same in various countries but vary in different cities or states of the same nation. In many cities in the United States, for instance, it is not legal to " _ " This law may seem strange to visitors. Sometimes they cross a street, and a police officer gives them a ticket. Then they need to pay a fine of $10 to $25. They soon learn to cross a street only in a crosswalk or at a corner. It's against the law to cross in the middle of the street. Most people know that states in the United States have different laws about the legal drinking age; this age varies, but in most states no one under twenty-one can buy alcohol, even beer or wine. Also, in most U.S. cities, it is illegal to drink alcohol in public. Of course, liquor is legal in restaurants and bars, but it's against the law to drink a can of beer, for instance, on a public street. Some people put the can in a paper bag and drink; nobody can see the beer, but it still isn't legal. In addition, it is illegal to have an open liquor bottle inside a car.
Answer: Having a bottle of wine in a Chinese restaurant.

Answer:
Which of the following is legal in the United States?