SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA The U.S. election calendar could be a key factor in determining the scope and timing of a potential deal to end the North Korean nuclear program. Planning is progressing for both the upcoming summit between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in at the end of April and the expected meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Kim in late May or early June. President Trump said Tuesday that there had been talks at "extremely high levels" between his administration and the North Korean government. Later it was reported that Mike Pompeo, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency and a secretary of state nominee, met recently with Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang. Trump also noted the talks have been marked by "a lot of goodwill" and that "there has been a major change in terms of North Korea's behavior," since Kim's Olympic outreach this year, in which he sent a large delegation to the Pyeongchang Winter games in South Korea, suspended nuclear and missile tests, and expressed a willingness to engage in denuclearization talks. The turn toward diplomacy has reduced, for now, the potential for conflict over the North's accelerated efforts last year to develop an operational nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach the U.S. mainland. The North Korean leader's decision to engage in denuclearization talks was likely motivated by both Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign, which increased sanctions and the threat of military action against the North, and by South Korean President Moon's reassuring outreach efforts to improve inter-Korean relations. Trump's motivation in pursuing a nuclear deal with North Korea, in addition to resolving a growing national security threat, could also have a political component. According to North Korea analysts at the Sejong Institute in South Korea, the Trump administration is likely calculating how achieving such an agreement could help boost the president's chances for re-election in 2020. "If I were Trump, I... Question: When was there a major change in North Korea's behavior? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- After Kim sent a large delegation to the Olympics
- After Kim met with Trump
- After Kim denuclearized

Answer: After Kim sent a large delegation to the Olympics

Problem: OPTIONS:
- She is mean.
- She is promiscuous.
- not enough information
- She is intelligent.
Q: I don't reckon the sun's ever come up quite the same since the day it happened. I've been watching it for years now and to me it still don't look right somehow. Maybe it's just me thinking it, sending myself doolally after what I've done. But I swear every morning it creeps up and it's looking at me, all knowing like. And when you reckon the sun's acting like that over you there isn't a right lot you can do about it, beyond burying yourself away like a mole in the soil. That's what I've been doing more or less in the score or so years that have gone by since. But however tight I shut them curtains to stop that damn sun lighting me up, it still don't stop the inside of my head from pounding out the truth. No way it's ever going to stop harassing me neither, not unless the deaf and dumb lass was to happen right back on my doorstep and give me the chance to tell her that it wasn't never meant to work out this way. The deaf and dumb lass went by the name of Mitzi Barker. Her being deaf and dumb, she was the kind of lass you went up the lane with if you didn't want no-one shouting their gob off about it after. Funny but it's the small things I recall best about her, like the way her hair reeked of bonfires and how that little old checkered dress of hers rode right up her thigh with no help from me. After we'd finished our business we'd head over the trout farm and I'd hunker down and poach us up a couple of rainbows for our tea. That Mitzi Barker, she was thin as an ear of barley and I always figured a good nosh-up was the least I could do for her troubles. Question: What is probably true about Mitzi? === The answer to the above question is
Answer: She is promiscuous.

input with options: 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: Who are the scientists === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- people scientist
- environmental scienctists
- not enough information
- social scientist
output:
not enough information