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: A recent report says we spend an average of two hours and 40 minutes each day looking at a smartphone. That doesn't mean making calls, but using apps and browsing the Web. Spend that amount of time staring at anything. Checked our email in a restaurant, shared a picture of the food when it arrived, or checked a fact during a conversation only to be drawn into reading more instead of contributing verbally. It's no secret our lives are being affected by our obsession with smartphones. However, never before has this phenomenon been displayed so vividly as in the short YouTube film I Forgot My Phone. Despite only being online for a few days, it's already been viewed more than 10. 5 million times. Ironically, YouTube's statistics show that the site gets a billion views per day from mobile devices, so a lot of those people watched it on their phone. The short film, written by and starring actress Charlene deGuzrnan, shows groups of people in various social situations, the majority of which are completely attracted by their phones instead of the world around them. It's depressing because we' ve all seen it, and sad because to a certain extent, we all do it.
Answer: Concerning.

Answer: What did the author think of looking at a smartphone?

Question: Article: New crime prediction software should reduce not only the murder rate, but the rate of other crimes. Developed by Richard Berk, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, the software has already used in Baltimore and Philadelphia to predict which individuals on probation or parole are most likely to murder and to be murdered. "When a person goes on probation or parole he is supervised by an officer. The question is 'what level of supervision is appropriate?'" said Berk. It used to be that parole officers used the person's criminal record, and their judgment to make decisions. "This research replaces those _ ," he said. Technology helps determine level of supervision. On average there is one murder for every 100,000 people. Even among high-risk groups the murder rate is one in 100. Predicting such a rare event is very difficult, but advances in computer technology works. Years ago, the researchers made a dataset of more than 60,000 various crimes. Using the software they developed, they found some much more likely to commit murder when paroled or probated. They could identify eight future murderers out of 100. Berk's software examines roughly two dozen variables , from criminal record to geographic location. The type of crimes, and more importantly, the age at which that crime was committed, were two of the most predictive variables. "People assume that if someone murdered then they will murder in the future," said Berk. " What really matters is what that person did as a young individual. Predicting future crimes sounds well. But we aren't anywhere near being able to do that." "Berk's scientific answer leaves policymakers with difficult questions. By labeling one group of people as high risk, and supervise them closely, there should be fewer murders, which the potential victims should be happy about. It also means that those high-risk individuals will be supervised more aggressively. For human rights advocates, that means punishing people who, most likely, will not commit a crime in the future," said Bushway. "It comes down to a question of whether you would rather make these errors or those errors."
Answer: 65.

Answer: For 650 people with crime records, how many potential murderers would the software find?

Question: Article: About ten days ago, I started to write an article on a parenting subject. I wish I could publish it. But in the days between the writing and the publishing, an unfortunate thing happened. My article discussing the lost art of walking to school was finished three days before an 8-year-old boy named Leiby Kletzky in Brooklyn tried to walk home for the first time from his summer camp. Today I will not describe the details around the Leiby Kletzky killing, except to point out the obvious fact that it terrified every parent who heard about it. What happened this week is one of the biggest reasons why so few kids walk to school now. In theory, walking to school is a wonderful habit, which can teach children independence, introduce them to their neighborhoods and encourage physical activity. It's better for the environment, eases traffic and is just generally the most fun choice. However, many of us parents don't allow the habit, mentioning the problems of logistics and distance. What we talk about less often is our fear. Maybe that's the heart of the matter. Indeed, it is an understandable reaction. But it is not a necessary one. What happened this week is extremely rare. Separating out the fact from the feelings is a difficult thing to do. Very few of us were ready to breathe easy about sending our young children off by themselves no matter what happened. We are far more worried now. The good news is that we don't have to be. Those children who go to school by themselves can be escorted when the neighborhood forms a "walking school bus". That's when designated parents walk with groups of children from home to school. With the benefit of safety, it allows kids to enjoy one of the joys of childhood. It's an easy, affordable choice. A walking school bus is a good idea that parents thought of. Proper measures are usually out there. Sometimes all they take is a little cooperation and some courage.
Answer: Supportive.

Answer:
What is the author's attitude towards walking school bus?