Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: My best story is about Santa Claus. A mall Santa had a heart attack at work and was rushed to the Emergency Room in full cardiac arrest. Let me explain that a person playing Santa is generally a certain age (white beard) and body type (round) that is predisposed to cardiac disease. We did everything we could but ultimately our efforts were futile. The mall Santa rode his sleigh into the great beyond. A mother, there to visit another patient, was insistent that her 78 year old son be allowed back to visit his grandmother. We had a strict 12 year old age limit visitation policy. I was called to speak with her. "Why do you have such a stupid Draconian policy?" She insisted. "The Emergency Room is no place for a child ma'am. Besides, the germs and infections he may be exposed to, there are things he may see or hear that a child would have a hard time processing," I explained. "Like what?" She argued. "Well, there are people in pain moaning," I answered. "And drunks cursing at the staff. It's a tough place." "He's fine," she insisted. "I think I know how to parent. I don't need you to worry about what my son is able to handle." I caved in and allowed her back. As we passed the room with the dead Santa, a tech exited and opened the curtain. Her child looked in and saw Santa's lifeless body, ET tube sticking out of his throat, boots still on but costume cut to shreds and strewn across the room. The child lost it! "Mom, Santa Claus is Dead!" He cried. "I'm not going to get anything for Christmas." "Why would someone open the curtain?" The mother demanded. "I warned you," I said. "That's why we have a 12 years and above visitation policy." She was not happy. Come to find out the child had his picture made with that very Santa a few days prior. Very ironic. Question: How did the mother feel after her son saw the deceased Santa Clause? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- angry
- shocked
- upset
- not enough information

A: not enough information

input: OPTIONS:
- conducted a mass shooting
- not enough information
- carried guns
- nothing related to shooting Now, answer this question: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: The leading U.S. presidential hopefuls reacted strongly Monday to the massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Sunday's incident that left 49 people dead and 53 others wounded was the worst mass shooting in U.S. history. The gunman, Omar Mateen, was a U.S. citizen and the son of Afghan parents. In her first speech since the shooting, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton told supporters in Cleveland, "The Orlando terrorist may be dead, but the virus that poisoned his mind remains very much alive." Clinton laid out a multi-faceted approach to combating terrorism. The plan would disrupt terrorist groups by infiltrating their online networks, enhancing intelligence sharing among local and federal law enforcement agencies, and asking allied nations to help "prevent the radicalization and recruitment" of potential terrorists in the U.S. and Europe. In an apparent response to presumptive Republican Party opponent Donald Trump's charge that President Barack Obama and other Democrats refuse to use the word "radical" to describe terrorists who happen to be Muslim, Clinton said earlier on CNN that she is not afraid to use the term, but says she refuses "to demonize and demagogue and declare war on an entire religion." Doing so, she said, "plays right into the ISIS' hands." ISIS is an acronym for Islamic State, which is also known as IS, ISIL and Daesh. Clinton called for citizens to reach out to Muslims in the United States "to help us defeat this threat." She cited the need for "common sense reform" of gun ownership laws, including a ban on assault weapons. After Obama did not use the term "radical" in his remarks Sunday from the White House, Trump criticized Obama's approach to extremism and said the president "should step down." Trump, meanwhile, renewed a call for a ban on the entry of Muslim immigrants into the United States. "The only reason the killer was in America in the first place was we allowed his family to come here," Trump said in a speech to supporters in Manchester, New... Question: what did Omar Mateen do Answer:
A:
output: conducted a mass shooting

Problem:OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- Pardoning power is legally not to be used on one's own self.
- The courts have never seen a case like this before.
- No president has ever tried it.

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: WHITE HOUSE President Donald Trump on Monday declared he has an "absolute right" to pardon himself and then also tweeted his assertion that the federal government investigation into ties between his 2016 election campaign and Russia is "totally unconstitutional." While Trump has frequently ignored established norms and challenged the understood limits of presidential powers, his latest comments are viewed by some legal scholars as unprecedented and testing constitutional boundaries. "I was shocked" by Trump's tweets, said Susan Low Bloch, a law professor at Georgetown University. "No president has ever tried it," she told VOA News. "It's unlikely the president can pardon himself. I think the court would say no" and if he did give himself a pardon, "most congresses would impeach him." Bloch also notes when most people accept a pardon "it's an admission of guilt," thus it would be a bad idea for Trump to pursue such a course of action. The professor, who has testified before the Senate on whether a president can be indicted and tried while in office, says the special counsel is "absolutely constitutional." Another constitutional scholar, Keith Whittington at Princeton University, said, "I think it is important to note that the president's comments reference serious arguments that are being debated by legal scholars, but these are difficult and unusual constitutional questions that would ultimately be answered in the courts." According to Northwestern University Law Professor Andrew Koppelman, "Trump's position on pardons is consistent with the Constitution's text, but inconsistent with the overall structure. It means that the President could commit capital treason, or any other federal crime, and then immediately pardon himself. "It means that he could commit murder in the White House," Koppelman said. "It makes no sense within the Constitution as a whole." Asked by reporters Monday about Trump's comment on his ability to pardon himself, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders repeatedly replied: "The... Question: Why are Trump's comments viewed as unprecedented? Answer:
****
A:
No president has ever tried it.