Input: Read this: After World War I the US Army started developing a dual-role (AA/ground) automatic 37 mm cannon, designed by John M. Browning. It was standardised in 1927 as the T9 AA cannon, but trials quickly revealed that it was worthless in the ground role. However, while the shell was a bit light (well under 2 lbs) it had a good effective ceiling and fired 125 rounds per minute; an AA carriage was developed and it entered service in 1939. The Browning 37mm proved prone to jamming, and was eventually replaced in AA units by the Bofors 40 mm. The Bofors had attracted attention from the US Navy, but none were acquired before 1939. Also, in 1931 the US Army worked on a mobile anti-aircraft machine mount on the back of a heavy truck having four .30 caliber water-cooled machine guns and an optical director. It proved unsuccessful and was abandoned.
Question: What replaced the Browning 37nn because of jamming issues?

Output: Bofors 40 mm

Input: Read this: The use of drones by the Central Intelligence Agency in Pakistan to carry out operations associated with the Global War on Terror sparks debate over sovereignty and the laws of war. The U.S. Government uses the CIA rather than the U.S. Air Force for strikes in Pakistan in order to avoid breaching sovereignty through military invasion. The United States was criticized by[according to whom?] a report on drone warfare and aerial sovereignty for abusing the term 'Global War on Terror' to carry out military operations through government agencies without formally declaring war.
Question: What did the United States criticize?

Output: unanswerable

Input: Read this: On March 3, 1944, on the orders of Stalin, the Chechen-Ingush ASSR was disbanded and its population forcibly deported upon the accusations of collaboration with the invaders and separatism. The territory of the ASSR was divided between other administrative unit of Russian SFSR and the Georgian SSR.
Question: Who ordered the deportation of the residents of the Chechen-Ingush ASSR?

Output: Stalin

Input: Read this: In order to qualify for protection, a work must be an expression with a degree of originality, and it must be in a fixed medium, such as written down on paper or recorded digitally. The idea itself is not protected. That is, a copy of someone else's original idea is not infringing unless it copies that person's unique, tangible expression of the idea. Some of these limitations, especially regarding what qualifies as original, are embodied only in case law (judicial precedent), rather than in statutes.
Question: What makes a copy of an unoriginal idea infringing?

Output:
unanswerable