Question: Years back, following a transition inside a large company where many people got fired and moved around, the decision was made to give the remaining people more work. Now, let me pause here, when I say, "more work" did not mean more of the existing work they already did. "More work" did not mean work of what they already knew, or signed up for when they were hired. More work meant incorporating a completely different role. For me, I'm a programmer. And "management" decided they wanted programmers to also do BA work. Now, mind you, nowhere on my employment contract does it state I'd have to take a BA role. And nowhere on my employment contract did it state taking a BA role would also require me doing all of my programming work. So, after being pushed a few times to attend BA meetings, I got fed up. So I pulled my manager into a meeting and explained this to him. I said, you have two choices: I do two roles, BA and programmer, and I get a new salary to account for the role. When he asked how much, I said, take my salary and multiply by 1.6. Option 2, I go back to programming, and you never pull me into a meeting again on BA work. It's not what you hired me for, and it's not what you pay me for. When my boss replied, "Our company is not in the position to pay for two roles", I told him, then it sounds like Option 2. And by the way, I don't ever want to have this discussion again. If you want Superman performance, you cannot pay Clark Kent wages. 1 year passed and I was never bothered again about BA roles. Takeaways: Middle managers are one step above one-celled organisms. They can, and will try to get you to do non-role work, with no intention of ever paying you more. They key is to cut it off at the pass. According to the above context, answer the following question. What sort of industry is company in?
OPTIONS:
- Consulting
- Marketing
- Financial
- not enough information
Answer: not enough information

input with options: The Trump administration's recent airstrikes in Syria just the latest action in a long-running conflict that has challenged U.S. presidents of both parties has prompted a new round of questions on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers are asking where last week's strikes fit in the larger U.S. strategy in response to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and for greater clarity to prevent an escalation of the conflict. "There needs to be a comprehensive strategy here laid out by the administration for Congress in terms of the options to pursue because of the urgency," House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce said during a House panel Wednesday. "Does the administration support imposing costs on the Russians and the Iranians for their role in the Assad regime's war crimes against its own people?" In his speech announcing the air strikes to the American people Friday, President Trump said the United States is "prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents." But later Friday, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said the latest action against Assad was a "one-time shot." Trump ordered Friday's strikes just weeks after saying the U.S. would "be coming out of Syria like very soon," reflecting changes in the administration's posture in response to Assad's reported use of prohibited chemical agents. "We're at a real risk here of conducting strikes without any clear strategy," Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told VOA. "The Trump administration for the past several months has issued contradictory statements, with former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and some diplomats saying that the U.S. troops inside Syria, in eastern Syria, would be dedicated to also countering Iran inside Syria. The Pentagon was saying something completely different defeating ISIS and continuing that campaign," he said. Trump administration officials told a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs committee Wednesday the president's goals in Syria remain clear. According to the above context, answer the following question. How long did it take for the U.S. to respond to Syria's use of chemical weapons?
OPTIONS:
- there has been criticism about the lack of U.S. response
- the conflict has been ongoing for many years
- not enough information
- the response was swift and immediate
output: the conflict has been ongoing for many years

Q: Today, many academics feel stuck between a rock and a hard place. They're under huge pressure to write and publish but an ever-growing mountain of teaching and admin is stopping them doing just that. Our research finds that whilst nobody is immune to these pressures, some academics cope better than others and that's because over the years, they've developed personal "systems" to help them write. We recently carried out in-depth interviews with 23 scholars across the UK, Europe and the US. We deliberately chose a diverse group so as to not make any assumptions based on age, seniority, or research background. Academic experience ranged from six months to 27 years and subject fields ranged from social sciences, economics, business, and arts. We did this as part of our user research to inform the development of Prolifiko a digital coaching tool for writers. Whilst every academic had developed a writing productivity system personal to them, we found there were six common "habits" that the most prolific (and generally least stressed) academics tended to use. 1. They "time-block" their writing in advance Scheduling booking in time to write in advance was the single most common habit of our writers. It didn't appear to matter what type of time-blocking method a scholar chose to use or how lengthy a writing session was. Some blocked out long periods of time on sabbatical, whilst others preferred to block out short, regular times throughout the day or across a week. What seemed to matter far more was the act of planning, as this mentally prepared the individual for writing and so made the process easier and less stressful. "When I need to write I block out time. I'm lucky in that I can work from home I block out a couple of straight days to do the writing and I plan it in beforehand. I couldn't really write in any other way than blocking out that time." According to the above context, answer the following question. Where did the author get his interview scholars from?

OPTIONS:
- diverse group from Europe and the US
- on a sabbatical
- not enough information
- a writing session

A:
diverse group from Europe and the US