Problem: OPTIONS:
- He communicates better than Paul Krugman.
- not enough information
- He is an economist.
- He is a scientist.
Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: It has become increasingly common for academics to use social media to communicate with wider audiences. Twitter, like many other social platforms, typically measures success in terms of numbers of followers, likes and retweets, but this only tells us something about the spreading of messages but not necessarily whether the content of the messages is understood or embraced. One way to ascertain this is through network and language analysis, which, used together, can tell us how effective the communication is. Economists tweet less, mention fewer people and have fewer conversations with strangers than a comparable group of experts in the sciences, and use less accessible language with words that are more complex, with more abbreviations and with a more distant tone. Their tweets are less personal and less inclusive than those used by scientists. This is what appeared in April 2017 when we gathered data on tens of thousands of tweets from the Twitter accounts of both the top 25 economists and 25 scientists as identified by IDEAS and Science, including the top three economists at the time, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, and Erik Brynjolfsson and, on the other side, the top three scientists, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Cox, and Richard Dawkins. At that time those accounts covered roughly two thirds of all the following. The timing is significant because 2016 has been declared the year of post-truth politics, the year in which appeals to emotions (pathos) superseded the significance of factual evidence-based information (logos), affecting people's constructions and interpretations of events. This has been accompanied by the growing prominence of political "alt" movements (e.g. UKIP, the Alt-right) and their aggressive, provocative, and populist narratives, and "fake news" leading to political shock events such as Brexit and the Trump election. The relatively low traction of economists in these public debates has been and continues to be an important issue. Does the public not trust economists? Don't they understand... Question: What is probably true about Neil deGrasse Tyson? Answer:
Answer: He communicates better than Paul Krugman.

Problem:OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- big government will not take care of their basic needs
- a major disaster will occur so they need to be prepared
- big government is the enemy

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: WASHINGTON They called themselves "crusaders" for a reason. The three Kansas militiamen planned to blow up an apartment complex housing Somali refugees during the 2016 presidential election, unleashing what one of them called "Crusades 2.0." But their plan was foiled after their arrest just weeks before the election, highlighting the changing enemy list of a movement founded on the back of anti-government activism a generation ago. And with the election of a president whose policies many militia members support, the urge to confront the government appears to have lost some of its urgency. Instead of railing at the government, they have in recent years turned their venom against new-found foes: Muslims, immigrants, the Antifa. "Some of the militia groups have been refocusing their attention on secondary enemies for the movement," said Mark Pitcavage, who researches extremism at the Anti-Defamation League civil rights group. Often lumped together with other right-wing groups, the anti-government movement comes in different forms. There are the "preppers," so called because they stockpile water, food and other essentials in preparation for civil unrest. There are the "survivalists," people who learn skills to "live off the land" in case of a disaster. There are "sovereign citizens" such as the suspect in the recent shooting at a Waffle House in Tennessee who are opposed to paying taxes and believe they should decide which laws to follow. And then there are the militiamen who conduct regular military-style training to resist a government they see as engaged in a global plot to take away their guns and constitutional rights. The modern militia movement dates back to a series of events in the early 1990s, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Among them: the 1992 election of Democratic President Bill Clinton and an FBI attack the following year on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, an event seen as "evidence of an out of control government willing to attack citizens." Under Clinton, the number... Question: Preppers probably believe that: Answer:
****
A: a major disaster will occur so they need to be prepared

input: OPTIONS:
- he is critical of the editing
- he is fixated on the costuming
- he analyzes the lighting
- not enough information Now, answer this question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is a great film, and often regarded as one of the greatest films of all time. I never much paid attention to how the film was lit, but on examination I don't know what I think of the lighting. Maybe i'm totally wrong, but the lighting seems quite obvious when you pay attention to it, which makes me thing it could have been done better? Certainly the lighting is masterfully done, in the way it properly exposes the characters faces and splashes off and around certain props and objects, adding a great deal of dimension to many of the shots. But it does look quite obvious, once you pay attention to it, especially when you can see multiple shadows coming from a single character. All that said, the lighting is still pretty masterful and I'm very intrigued to properly analyse it. The first shot of the scene has extremely beautiful (even though it is obvious 😉 ) lighting. As the cowboy stands in the hallway you can tell that there is a strong key light coming from the left of the frame, that will light his face once he steps out of the shadows. It seems like there is another light, maybe coming from high up near the roof, lighting the right hand side of the frame, near the back of the hallway. Most likely facing towards the character to light him from his right hand side, to seperate him from the background. The lighting setup of this shot is extremely beautiful the way it enhances the various pieces of wood and props within the frame, and how they've managed to keep the cowboy drenched in shadows as he sneaks around, even though there is quite a lot of light within the frame. It looks like they may have used a cutter to achieve that effect as its a very specific area, essentially just the top half of the cowboy thats drenched ins shadow. Theres also this curious black circular shadow which exists at the very top of the door near the cowboys head which permanently stays extremely dark, much darker than the rest of the shadows in the frame. I wonder how they achieved this effect? Maybe a... Question: How does the author change the way he watches the film? Answer:
A:
output:
he analyzes the lighting