input with options: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: China's Defense Ministry said Thursday that a U.S. decision to disinvite China from a major international maritime exercise is "unconstructive." A ministry statement said despite the decision, China will continue playing a role in "maintaining peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region." The United States announced its move Wednesday, saying Beijing's "destabilizing behavior" in the South China Sea is inconsistent with the principles of the U.S.-led drill. "China's continued militarization of disputed features in the South China Sea only serve to raise tensions and destabilize the region," read a statement from Lt. Col. Christopher Logan, a Pentagon spokesman. The statement said that disinviting China from the 2018 RIMPAC is an "initial" response to Beijing's South China Sea activities. It did not specify what other steps may be taken. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said China's activity in the South China Sea was for self-defense and that it was a "much smaller scale" than what the United States had done in Hawaii and Guam. "We hope that the U.S. will change such a negative mindset," he said at a joint news conference with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Since 2014, China has taken part in RIMPAC, the world's largest international maritime drill, which is held every two years in Hawaii. It's a reflection of expanding U.S.-China military ties, despite tensions over Beijing's construction of man-made islands in the South China Sea, some of which have been militarized. "We have strong evidence that China has deployed anti-ship missiles, surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems, and electronic jammers to contested features in the Spratly Islands region of the South China Sea. China's landing bomber aircraft at Woody Island has also raised tensions," the Pentagon statement said. "We have called on China to remove the military systems immediately and to reverse course on the militarization of disputed South China Sea features," the statement added. "We believe these recent deployments and the continued... Question: What is probably true of China's defense ministry? Answer:
OPTIONS:
- they want the US to rethink its stance
- they believe the US decision to exclude them was not productive
- not enough information
- they want to have power in the South China Sea
output: they believe the US decision to exclude them was not productive

Q: Read the following context and answer the question. Context: It would have to be this Donald Trump once cashed a $0.13 check In 1990, writer from a "Spy Magazine" had a great idea for a prank: "What would happen if you sent checks for small amounts to celebrities and saw who cashed them, putting to test the theory that every man (and woman) has a price? In their words: "We could however, send them checks for minuscule sums of moneysums so small they couldn't fund as much as a minute of the recipients' existenceand see who would bother to bank these teensy amounts of money." Spy thought "some subterfuge" would be necessaryit'd be suspicious to get a check from the magazine that lampooned so many of the intended recipients. This was specifically true for Trump, who Spy once famously referred to as a "short-fingered vulgarian." So, they created a fully funded and incorporated company called National Refund Clearinghouse, which allowed them to open a checking account. Then they drafted a letter explaining that the check was a refund for a small overcharge that had occurred in 1988what the celebrities had been overcharged for was never mentioned. They sent the checks out (initially for $1.11) to 58 well-known people like Cher, Henry Kissinger, and, of course, Donald Trump. Of the 58, 26 cashed the checksDonald included. The magazine drafted a followup letter and checks for $0.64 to those 26 people to see who would take more free money. Thirteenincluding Donald Trumpdeposited the checks worth two quarters, a dime, and four pennies into their banks. Then they went for one last score: in honor of those 13 people, 13 more checks for $0.13. Two people cashed them: a Saudi arms dealer named Adnan Khashoggi, and Donald Trump. Seriously." I really don't know if this is the most "cheapskate" thing, on just CRAZY fiscal responsibility. But if I had to pick, this would get my vote resources: Splinter - The truth hurts Question: The $0.64 checks were sent out: Answer:

OPTIONS:
- not enough information
- after the $0.13 checks were deposited.
- after the $1.11 checks were deposited.
- right after the $1.11 checks were mailed.

A: after the $1.11 checks were deposited.

Read the following context and answer the question. Context: Shortly after five, the hospital called. More precisely, the emergency room phoned to ask if Ray had a bed. Ray pretended to consult his admission log, just as he always did. The nightly hospital call meant one of three things: the chemical dependency floor was full (highly unlikely), the individual in question had fallen under the hospital's "one treatment episode every three months" sanction (also known as the Black List, and only moderately unlikely), or the prospective client had no insurance (in Ray's experience, very likely). The folks at the hospital knew, as did Ray, that federal law prohibited him from turning away individuals requesting detoxification services if he had an open bed. The hospital was generous enough to spring for a cab voucher for the intoxicate. In Ray's experience as well, overnight admissions were less interested in detox than in free food, a free bed and complimentary meds. For his two hour paperwork investment and aggravation, he would receive the benefit of knowing the client slept until noon then slipped out the side door and into another binge. Any bills for service generated for the brief stay would return in a week or so stamped "No Such Address" or simply "Return to Sender". On average, the clients of addictions services managed to muster a raging 25% of them who would ever pay a dime toward their bill. The night shift admission payment percentages were a quarter of that quarter in good years. Thus, the frequent calls from the hospital. They had little better luck in getting good addresses (or even with those, a client who stayed sober long enough to give a shit). No one relished treating the uninsured and uninsurable. It was fiscal suicide. The hospital was perfectly willing to let the local experts in deadbeats handle the workload. Tonight, Ray could tell them no. He liked telling them no, especially when it was the truth. Question: What did Ray tell the hospital? Answer:

OPTIONS:
- To send the cab with a patient over
- No
- not enough information
- the federal law allows him to turn patients away

Answer:
No